Tallow

Lord Willoughby de Broke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will permit rendering plants to continue to use tallow as boiler fuel.

Lord Bach: My Lords, rendering plants may continue to use tallow as boiler fuel provided that they comply with regulatory requirements. Those include an authorisation under the Animal By-Products Regulations 2005 and an environmental permit issued under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 incorporating the requirements of the EU Waste Incineration Directive.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am only mildly grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he admit that this is gross gold-plating of a classic kind? Will he admit, first, that the Commission has said that it is unnecessary to classify tallow under the Waste Incineration Directive, and, secondly, that no other member states, apart from Belgium, are implementing the directive in the same heavy-handed and expensive way as we are? Can the noble Lord explain to us why we are doing that and what the costs to industry are of implementing the directive in the way that he has just suggested?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am only mildly surprised that the noble Lord is mildly disappointed with my Answer. This is not gold-plating. The EU is clear, as is our legal advice, that the burning of tallow as fuel is subject to the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive. We do not like the fact that it is; indeed, complaints by industry and concerns expressed by fellow Ministers in Defra have resulted in the EU Environment Commissioner saying that a study will take place. It is hoped that that will result in some conclusions in 2006, but I cannot promise that the legislation will be changed this year or even next. Like the noble Lord, we are not happy with the situation, but I have to tell him that embassies around Europe tell us that many more countries than the one that he has mentioned—nine in all—are definitely applying the directive to tallow. Is he really suggesting that once we are a member of a club we can break the rules?

Lord Waddington: My Lords, let us be clear about this. Is my noble friend wrong when he says that, if the Government continue to insist that tallow be burnt in plants complying with the Waste Incineration Directive, we and Belgium will be the only countries in the EU so insisting? If that is right, what is wrong with my noble friend's criticism? Is it not obvious that the Government are showing a determination to apply European regulation in as punishing a manner as possible?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is wrong about this, going by the inquiries that we have made of embassies in EU countries. Nine countries—plus us—are definitely applying the directive to tallow: Portugal, Slovenia, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic and Cyprus. Others are probably applying it, and there may be one that is not. However, as I said, if we are a member of a club, are we prepared to break the rules of that club just because some other countries do the same?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I expect that the Minister would accept that a club can occasionally get the rules wrong. This is a good example of backward thinking. There are a couple of examples where something regarded as waste should be regarded as a fuel. Does the Minister accept that the Treasury has increased the tax on waste vegetable oil—industry has gone to a lot of trouble to be able to convert it into fuel, thereby making massive carbon savings—by 20p per litre, confirming that the Government's attitude to the definitions of "waste" and "fuel" is as mixed as Europe's?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the EU directive sets out what constitutes waste. Our legal advice is clear that tallow is waste. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, however, that not everything that comes out of the Commission is necessarily perfect. This certainly is not. We want to see the position changed; the question is whether we break the rules until it is.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-chairman of the British Association of Biofuels and Oils. Does the Minister agree that rendering and use of tallow as a fuel is an excellent example of waste disposal and recycling? He tells us that 10 member states are abiding by the directive, which means that 15 are not. Is that a level playing field?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know about some of the other member states. I have told the House as best I can which ones are definitely applying the directive. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said at the start of his question.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, given the Minister's views about maintaining the rules of the club, is he suggesting that tallow burning is more of a contaminant to the environment than the burning of diesel, which would otherwise have to be used as a boiler fuel?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the directive and the regulation that has been transposed into English law say that. That is the legal advice that we have had. We want to change the situation. Biodiesel from tallow, of course, is not affected because, there, tallow is turned into another material and apparently ceases to be waste. That being so, my Lords, perhaps tallow users might consider selling their tallow to those who make biodiesel. We are very keen to encourage that.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister has told us that the legal instructions are clear. Has he examined the technical facts? When it comes to breaking the rules, perhaps he could delay them somewhat.

Lord Bach: My Lords, as usual the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asks a wise question. There is a procedure for operators to appeal against any condition of an authorisation or permit. It is up to the Secretary of State to consider that appeal. There is no time limit on how long she has to consider the appeal. While the appeal is being considered, there is a duty on the operator to comply. However, perhaps more often than not, regulators take good notice of the fact that there has been an appeal.

Schools: Admissions

Baroness Massey of Darwen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What improvements they have recently made to the arrangements for transfer from primary to secondary schools.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we have improved the admissions process for parents with effect from last year by requiring local authorities to co-ordinate secondary admissions for all schools in their area. Parents now express their school preferences on one application form and receive the best available offer of a place in line with their preferences on 1 March each year. That prevents parents holding multiple offers. We are also improving the transfer of essential pupil data from primary to secondary school.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the transfer from primary to secondary school is one of the most important transitions in a child's life and that we must get it as right as possible? Many local authorities are striving hard. Do we have feedback from parents, pupils and schools on what works?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, parents need the best possible information on which to base their judgments on primary to secondary transfer. I know that my noble friend has a particular interest in the London Borough of Southwark in which she is a school governor. Southwark operates a number of initiatives better to inform parents about secondary options in their area. They include an annual exhibition that all schools attend, at which information is presented by the secondary schools in the borough. It also operates an on-track initiative focused on schools with a high proportion of parents with English as a second language in which parents are given advice on options available to them, receive help with form filling and have the admissions process explained to them, including videos. The borough also lays on minibuses to transport parents and children to open evenings at schools. Those are all initiatives that we believe are worthwhile in helping better to inform parental choice.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that four out of 10 pupils make no progress in maths or English in their first year in secondary school? In the light of that, it is important to focus on initiatives that involve the pupils. What are the Government doing to encourage initiatives such as student contact across the primary/secondary divide, buddying, and joint academic, sporting and leisure events that involve both schools?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important issue. The specialist schools programme which now includes two-thirds of all secondary schools has a particular strand focused on bringing primary and secondary schools together in joint partnerships to take forward the kind of initiatives that the noble Baroness mentioned. A crucial factor, in particular for pupils not making enough progress, is the transfer of information between primary and secondary schools on pupil progress. The department has introduced a number of initiatives including a new school-to-school secure data-transfer site to provide for the electronic transfer of information between primary and secondary schools so that secondary school teachers start off with much better information about the progress of their pupils when they arrive.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to place a similar duty on local authorities to that in Clause 12 of the Childcare Bill; that is, for the local authority to provide parents with information on all secondary education and other relevant services, thereby no doubt helping parents to make a better informed choice?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, all the local authorities that I know provide that information. I shall consider further whether there should be a legal duty on them to do so and come back to the noble Baroness.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the difficulties that many children in the care of the state may experience during the transition from primary to secondary school and their need for excellent support from their carers in that important process? Does the noble Lord understand the urgent need to make more attractive the role of foster carer and residential childcare worker in children's homes, given the fact that last year vacancy rates for staff in children's homes increased beyond an already highly unacceptable level and that there is still a significant shortage of foster carers?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Earl raises a number of important issues. It is partly to meet the concerns that he raises that we are about to lay regulations before the House to give children in care the first priority for admissions to secondary schools so that the best possible arrangements are in place for their transfer to secondary education.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what is the situation for those with SENs when they transfer? Does the department issue instructions or guidance to help people get that transition correct?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the department has issued considerable guidance on the transfer of pupils with special educational needs, including the obligation on schools named in statements to accept pupils without a capacity for them to contest it. That gives pupils with special educational needs the support that they need in making the transfer to secondary education.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, does the Minister agree that those who find the transition most difficult are probably those who are well behind in reading and arithmetic? Although the Government's proposal to spend £335 million on catch-up in secondary schools is welcome, would it not be a good move to spend more on catch-up for such children before they make the transition?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Lord is completely right. That is precisely why we asked Jim Rose, former senior HM inspector, to look at the early teaching of reading. At the end of last year he produced his preliminary report, which emphasised the need for rigorous approaches, including synthetic phonics, to the teaching of reading at the beginning of primary education. His second report, which we expect in a month's time, will look at catch- up programmes, particularly programmes such as Reading Recovery, which appear to make a big difference for those who are falling behind in the first and second years of their primary education.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I return to the original Question. Is there not a more methodical way of garnering feedback from pupils and parents who have gone through the experience and from schools so that we can improve the system?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, schools are always seeking to learn what works best from the experience of pupils and parents. One test of whether the system is working well is the number of parents who appeal against admissions decisions for secondary schools. The latest figures that I have, for 2003–04, show a significant decline in appeals, from 50,200 to 46,500. It looks as if schools are learning something from the experiences of those who have gone before.

Housing: Octavia Hill Estates

Lord Newby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to make representations in line with the objectives of their housing policy concerning the proposed imminent sale by the Church Commissioners of three Octavia Hill estates in south London.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Government have no locus in the arrangements. The Church Commissioners are a private landlord, and their statutory obligation is to manage their investments in the wider interests of the Church community.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that the original intention of Octavia Hill was for the estates to be social housing in perpetuity; that the inevitable consequences of those estates being transferred to a private landlord will be that rents will rise over time to the market level; and that, as existing tenants move on, those estates will quickly cease to be social housing?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I agree that when Octavia Hill was charged by the Church Commissioners with the management of the estates in the 1880s it was as housing for poor people. She was obviously a woman of strong opinions, and I suspect that she would be welcome in your Lordships' House. Her progressive principles remain an inspiration to this Government, as we attempt to increase social housing in London through Housing Corporation social housing grants. I cannot speculate on future rent levels because they will depend on a number of elements, particularly on the nature of the tenancies held, which are many and various.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Church of England. Does my noble friend agree that, although the Church Commissioners have an exacting task in managing the finances of the Church well, the purpose of doing that is to enable the Church to fulfil its function as a Church? I cannot think of anything more important in the application of Christian principles than having the provision of social housing at the forefront of its priorities.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has identified himself as a member of that august body. He is right that the Church Commissioners have a responsibility to balance their responsibilities to the wider Church—pensions and other clergy interests—and to the tenants for whom social housing in the charge of the Church Commissioners has a particular value and provides a particular form of security.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I must declare several interests. The estates concerned lie in my diocese. On the other hand, like all diocesan bishops, I am paid and housed by the Church Commissioners, and I am grateful to them for the careful way in which they manage their affairs. Nevertheless, is the Minister aware that many of us in the Church would be greatly disturbed if the Octavia Hill houses were not sold to a social landlord? We believe that no charity optimises its assets if, by maximising them, it risks damaging the charity's good name.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as Housing Minister I am always extremely pleased to meet a happy tenant, no matter who the landlord is. I am pleased that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark is so pleased with his landlord. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the voices that he represents here will be heartened by what he has said this afternoon.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, there is considerable dissent among Church lawyers regarding the duties on the Church Commissioners concerning this estate. The Church Commissioners may have been advised that they have to maximise their returns in disposing of the premises. Might the Minister get the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to cast his eye over the case of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who took the Church Commissioners to the High Court in 1991 on the issue? The judgment that came forth from the vice-chancellor gives a landmark guidance, which I suggest the Church Commissioners ought now to follow, with the consequences referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am surprised and disappointed to find that there is such dissent among the Church lawyers, which is not what might be expected from that most harmonious of institutions. I do not know the case that the noble Lord refers to. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General would prefer not to be involved. I will make sure that the information is drawn to the attention of other interested parties.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Government confirm that the first and second Church Commissioners—on behalf of the established Church—are appointed by and on behalf of the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister? Therefore to go so strongly against government policy, which has wide support in the country, as well as to sail extremely close to the rules of charitable law, seems a little odd.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I confirm the nature of the appointments that have been made, and that the Government are extremely keen—especially in London, where there is a lot of housing stress—to make available as much social housing as possible. I am pleased to say that, since 2004, we have increased our commitment to social housing, doubled the amount provided and look forward to doing more in the next spending round. The role of the registered social landlords—the housing association—is critical to what we can do.

NHS: Postponement of Operations

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many patients have had operations postponed for financial reasons in the current financial year.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the great majority of NHS bodies are delivering improved patient services within the greatly increased budgets that this Government have provided. In a small number of instances where a hospital has exceeded its planned level of activity, they have been asked to go slower for the remainder of this financial year on a clinically safe basis. Information is not available centrally on the number of locally postponed operations. Any such postponements that are taking place should be viewed in the context that, by the end of 2005, no patient was expected to wait more than six months for in-patient treatment, compared with three to four times that long in 1997.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, is this another example of Tebbit's law—that is, if a question is asked that might have an embarrassing answer, the Government do not have the figures?
	I congratulate the Government on their very courageous announcement yesterday to allow the private sector for the first time to supply GP and other acute services within the NHS. Can the Minister explain how this will help those primary care trusts and hospitals that see resources within the health service lying idle because they have run out of cash?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, the number of health bodies that have some degree of financial challenge is small. I was expecting strong support from the noble Lord on addressing poor financial management. I am grateful for his congratulations on the Government's White Paper. I also thought that he was going to thank us for tackling some of the problems of health inequalities in these areas, which have long lain neglected in some parts of the country.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, while I am sure that we all regret any delays that may be caused by these financial constraints, to put the matter in perspective, will my noble friend tell us how many operations were conducted last year compared with the number in the last full year of the Conservative government?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have the exact numbers in my head, but they are almost too big to count. However, my noble friend is quite right: the waiting lists are now down to under 800,000 under this Government, whereas they were well over a million under the previous Government. We know that there were hospital deficits in the NHS under the previous government.

Earl Howe: My Lords, is not the squeeze of a completely different order at the moment compared with what happened in years past? Given that next year hospitals will be paid 1.5 per cent more for each procedure, whereas the Government have estimated NHS inflation at 6.5 per cent, are my fears misplaced that in a year's time we may find operations being postponed in exactly the same way as they are now?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Earl's fears are misplaced. I gently remind him that in 1996–97—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Warner: My Lords, some of these facts are very uncomfortable and I feel under a public duty to bring them to the attention of the House. In 1996–97, the deficit in the NHS was £460 million, which was about 1.5 per cent of turnover, whereas last year it was £250 million, which was about 0.4 per cent of turnover. I suggest that we are seeing improving financial management under this Government as well as more investment. It is also true that next year, as with this year, the NHS will receive nearly 10 per cent extra in cash and another 10 per cent on top of that. We think that the NHS can deliver with those levels of investment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if all that extra money has been poured in, why is the health service in a worse state now than at any time that anyone can remember?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there are many statistics that I could give the noble Baroness, but I shall give a few: better death rates in relation to cancer; longer survival rates for coronary heart disease; massive improvements in waiting times; and improvements in A&E services where people wait no longer than four hours compared with perhaps 12 hours on a trolley under the previous government.

Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that no matter how much money we give to a public service—in this case the health service—there will always be pressures to spend more and, therefore, there will always be the anomaly to which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred? There is simply no way out of the fact that public service bodies have to meet an efficiency requirement. We want them to do that and, therefore, we shall have the anomalies referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. That is totally unavoidable unless the whole of economics suddenly disappears.

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. For the investment, we are seeing huge improvements in services for patients. We are also seeing more transparency in NHS finance, rather than the smoke-and-mirrors system used by the previous government.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the reason for the cancellation of so many operations at the moment is that trusts are required to implement the increased salary costs of Agenda for Change part way through a financial year at the behest of his department? In view of that, can he tell us whether the cost of financial turnaround consultants will be borne by the department or by the trusts?

Lord Warner: My Lords, huge amounts of money have been given to the NHS, as I have said. We have funded those increases in the allocations that have been made to PCTs. For the record, cancellations at the last minute are down 16 per cent over the last three years. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked about postponements, as I understood.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, what is being done to ensure that junior doctors in SHO grades will remain employed when Modernising Medical Careers come in? In whatever system, if you do not have junior doctors in training, you will not have anyone to do the operations and provide the service. Currently that cohort of doctors faces potential unemployment.

Lord Warner: My Lords, there were a very small number of SHOs who had difficulty in finding a place last summer. We are working with the BMA and other interested parties to ensure that things improve in the next financial year.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us on this side welcome the prospect of a White Paper on tackling health inequalities? Many of us were therefore very disappointed that this important topic was not in the Statement that was due to be repeated here yesterday. Is there any reason why that was so?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am happy to share with the House the thought, which has occurred to me occasionally, that the Benches opposite do not like having Statements repeated in this House when they are all about good news.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, there is some more good news about the conduct of debate today. It may be helpful to the House if I spell out the document, which is available for everyone to see—if they picked it up on the way in—on the suggested conduct of the debate. The aim is to try to have one debate, within a reasonable time, to reach a conclusion at a reasonable time, and during that debate to enable everyone with an amendment to speak to their amendment.
	The first speaker will be my noble friend the Leader of the House, who will move the principal motion. Then we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who will move his amendment. Then we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and from other principal players in today's debate: the leader of the Cross-Benchers, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick; and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. After that, we will hear the movers of the various amendments in turn: the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, will move Amendment No. 2, which is an amendment to Amendment. No. 1; then my noble friend Lord Barnett will speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4; and speaking to Amendment No. 5 will be my noble friend Lady Gould.
	The debate will be concluded with a response from my noble friend the Leader of the House. The House will then reach a decision on the amendments as they are listed. Let me repeat the logic: the first decision will be on an amendment to the first amendment, which is the vote on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes; and we will then have the vote on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We will then decide on the other amendments in order: that is Amendment No. 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett; Amendment No. 4, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett; Amendment No. 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould; and then, if necessary, the decision on the principal Motion.
	I hope that that works. I hope that, if we approve the decision to have a Speaker, this will possibly be one of the last times that I have to do anything like this.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, presumably it is in order for any noble Lord to oppose any of the amendments and to speak at the appropriate points. The noble Lord has given the impression that the debate will be restricted to those he has just mentioned.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is quite right to say that it is in order, but the combined wisdom of the usual channels, aided and abetted by precedent, is that the House normally finds it convenient to have a general debate on the wide question and on the amendments as moved—I have listed how the amendments will be moved. Of course it would be in order, when the amendments are moved, for anyone opposing them specifically at that stage to speak. However, I am not sure that the House would be entirely thrilled if we had a series of mini-debates following the general debate. Perhaps I can test the mood of the House on that, but we will fall off that bridge when we come to it. I suggest to the noble Lord that a series of mini-debates after the general debate would not be—

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I was suggesting not that there should be a series of mini-debates but that there may well be Members who are opposed to a number of these amendments. Therefore, as part of the general debate—and I accept that point entirely—it would be appropriate for noble Lords, if they object to the amendments, to put the other case.

Lord Grocott: Absolutely, my Lords. I am sorry if I did not make that clear.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord be a little clearer? I got the same impression as my noble friend that those who had amendments down would be the speakers and thereafter there would be a vote. In fact, as on all these occasions, all other noble Lords who wish to speak can do so as well before the votes are taken.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I can only apologise for the lack of clarity in my initial statement. The position is precisely as the two speakers have suggested. It is perfectly in order for people to speak against individual amendments during the general debate. The House will be relieved to know that I have no intention whatever of standing for the post of Speaker.

Speakership of the House

Baroness Amos: rose to move, further to the resolution of the House of 12 July 2005, that the Report of the Select Committee on the Speakership of the House of Lords (HL Paper 92) be approved; and that an election be held no later than 30 June 2006.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name, I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and to all members of the committee for their work.
	This House prides itself on taking an evolutionary approach to change. That approach has been evident in consideration of the Speakership of this House. The issue was first raised in June 2003, considered by a Select Committee and reported on in November 2003, and debated in this House in January 2004 and July 2005.
	Following the debate in July last year, the House made an important decision. It resolved:
	"That this House should elect its own presiding officer;"—[Official Report, 12/07/05; col. 1002.]
	and that a Select Committee on the Speakership of the House be appointed to consider further how to implement this resolution, with full regard to the House's tradition of self-regulation. That committee has now done its job and has produced a report on how the House's decision could be implemented.
	I think the chairman and members of the committee have done something genuinely outstanding. Having started their inquiry with strongly held and differing views about the right way forward for the House on the issue of the Speakership, they have produced a unanimous report. I do not underestimate that achievement and thank all members of the committee for their hard work and dedication in this matter. They have done the House a great service in identifying a model for the Speakership around which a consensus can be built.
	Noble Lords will know from the speeches I have made in this Chamber and from the evidence I gave to the committee that, in some respects, the committee's conclusions do not match my own views on the role of a Speaker in this House. There are some areas in which I would have gone further, but I am well aware of the strength of feeling and divergent views in this House. The committee has found a middle course which sits well with the traditions and history of the House while recognising the need to move forward.
	At the centre of the committee's proposals is a recognition and restatement of the importance of self-regulation to the culture and ethos of our House. In protecting that principle, the committee has crafted a role for a Speaker covering three distinct and important areas: a role in the Chamber; a role in the House, outside the Chamber; and a wider representational role, including public engagement. I attach great importance to all three areas and would like to address each in turn.
	The committee makes the important point:
	"It is odd that the Lord on the Woolsack should be the only member of the House who is prohibited from assisting"
	the House when procedural guidance is required. The committee proposed that an elected Speaker would spend more time in the Chamber, take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House and, like other Members of the House, give procedural guidance where appropriate. I share this view. As the House knows, I would have gone further and transferred the limited role performed by the Leader at Question Time to the Speaker. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the authority of the Leader rests with the role performed by the Leader at Question Time. However, this is a matter for the House to decide and I am happy to abide by the will of the House. With respect to the role of the Speaker outside the Chamber, the committee proposed that the Speaker should become Chairman of the House Committee, a member of the Procedure Committee, take responsibility for security and become one of the three keyholders of Westminster Hall. I endorse these proposals.
	The committee also set out a role for the Speaker representing the House at home and abroad and acting as an apolitical spokesperson. The House will know that I am of the view that any Speaker should have a strong representational role and a strong role in public engagement. The committee also identified a number of other functions which could be transferred to the Speaker, including in relation to Private Notice Questions, the application of the sub judice rule and authorising the recall of Parliament after consultation. In our debate in July I said that I do not consider having a presiding officer and self-regulation as mutually exclusive. I remain of that view. The committee has set out a role for a Speaker in this Chamber which not only preserves the principle of self-regulation in this House but has the capacity to enhance it by ensuring that it works.
	I will not go into the details of amendments standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lady Gould, or the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. My Motion is clear: acceptance of the committee's report in its entirety. I recognise that there are some elements of the report which Members of this House will want strongly to support, and other elements which they may be willing to support. That is the nature of compromise, and it is for that reason that I will not be voting for any of the amendments put before the House today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the members of his committee have given us a workable solution, and I endorse it.
	Let me now turn to the second part of my Motion. The Motion proposes that an election be held no later than June 30. It may be helpful if I set out briefly what I think would happen between now and the end of June if, and only if, the House agrees today's Motion. The domestic committees of the House would be invited to consider the various matters set out in the report of the Speakership Committee, and the Senior Salaries Review Body would be invited to make a recommendation on remuneration, again, as suggested by the Speakership Committee. The House would then consider any recommendations put to it and make any decisions needed to allow us to hold an election in June. For example, the proposed Standing Order changes would be brought before the Procedure Committee, and then the House, for approval. From mid-May to mid-June nominations would open and candidates' statements would be prepared. As with the hereditary Peers' elections, the precise arrangements would be entrusted to the House authorities, under the Clerk of the Parliaments. The election itself would be held in late June; the Queen's approval of our choice would then be obtained; the results of the election would be announced in early July; and the new Speaker would take up their post.
	We are at the threshold of an important change. We have the opportunity now to enhance this House's central tradition—that of self-regulation—by choosing to elect a Speaker from our own number, a Speaker who will be manifestly independent and able to represent the interests of all the Members of our House, not one representing the views of the usual channels. As I have said before, I do not think it is appropriate for a government Minister to continue to be the Speaker of an independent legislative chamber. It is time to move on. We have the template and I very much hope that we will follow the example of the Select Committee on the Speakership and make this important change together and unanimously. I beg to move.
	Moved, further to the resolution of the House of 12 July 2005, that the Report of the Select Committee on the Speakership of the House of Lords (HL Paper 92) be approved; and that an election be held no later than 30 June 2006.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Strathclyde: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the Lord President, in line 3, after "approved" to insert "except that the office of Speaker should be combined with that of Chairman of Committees".

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I commend the Leader of the House for the entirely reasonable way in which she proposed her Motion. I am delighted to join her in welcoming the report. I hope she agrees with me that it shows the great benefit of having second thoughts, as this report is considerably better than the original one which was published as far back as November 2003.
	This debate is therefore the culmination of a long-running saga. The loss of the Lord Chancellor has been a bitterly divided process and many Peers on all sides will be very sad to see a line of Lord Chancellors sitting on the Woolsack, stretching back to time immemorial, now being broken. I am one of those who does not believe that we were demeaned by having a Lord Chancellor named as our Speaker, any more than the US Senate is by having the vice-president as its presiding officer. On the contrary, I have always positively welcomed the presence of the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack. It honoured the House and represented the House in Cabinet. We shall lose both of those now. So it would be right to pay more than a passing tribute to all those Lord Chancellors whose arms we see above and about us and who served this House so well.
	Also like many noble Lords, I hope that even now the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree to stay with us on the Woolsack for as long as he remains Lord Chancellor. Unfortunately, on page 12 of the evidence, he said:
	"Indeed, I think the norm should be that if you are ministerially in charge of a department you should be in that department to provide leadership to both civil servants and fellow politicians. I therefore regard it as my role to be in Selborne House where the Department for Constitutional Affairs is based".
	So there it is. The noble and learned Lord wants to go, no doubt to do better things than this House. But I hope he will still feel that this House is his scene. We shall always be glad to see him when he visits us—welcoming even—although I hope he brings with him far less legislation and far better legislation than he sometimes has done in the past.
	I say to those who share my sadness today that, whatever we feel, we cannot hold the noble and learned Lord here. We must agree to other arrangements now that he has said he wants to go. We must look to the future, not regret a gracious past. Of course, there is a small consolation in that the grand suite of offices in your Lordships' House currently occupied by the department will now be freed up for the use of Peers.
	The Select Committee, chaired so ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has done a good job. I congratulate it and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, I agree with much of its report. I agree with the absolute central importance of self-regulation to the nature of this House. Its civility, courtesy, sense of proportion, intolerance of grandstanding and self-promotion—so much in contrast to daily conduct in another place—owe much to self-regulation. Without self-restraint we could not function. Because we have self-restraint, I believe we function outstandingly well.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that it is sensible to allow the Peer in the Chair to offer the same advice to the House on procedure as any other noble Lord, but we will still, for example, continue to look to the Whips on the government Front Bench for their invaluable guidance. We on these Benches will do all we can to assist them. Indeed, all Peers should play their part.
	I welcome the committee's conclusion that the Leader of the House should continue to lead us at Question Time. As the House knows from earlier debates and my evidence to the committee, I think that it is extremely important that we do not inadvertently change the role of Leader of the House as a servant of the whole House as a by-product of this process. So I support this whole-House role and therefore cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, unless she produces a brilliantly original argument when she moves her amendment.
	I am sorry that the committee did not go a further step and leave decisions on Private Notice Questions with the Leader. The committee feared that there was a risk of political bias. I disagree, and I still do not know why the committee ever thought there could be. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will explain when he comes to speak. I have never known such political bias, or ever even suspected it. As Leader of the Opposition and leader of the party with most to lose if there was such a risk, I must tell the House that I strongly support the present system and the sense of fair play that has always been demonstrated by a succession of Leaders.
	A whole-House role is being taken from the Leader, something I think unwise. The reality is that the Leader, as a Cabinet Minister, will always be in a far better position than a Speaker to know if there is an imminent event or announcement that would render a PNQ unnecessary. What it means in reality is that such decisions will no longer be taken in this House but by Mr Speaker in another place. For I can see few circumstances in which our Speaker would allow a PNQ that Mr Speaker had disallowed.
	I will not divide the House on this detailed matter, but I hope that before we elect a Speaker, the Leader of the House might agree to think further and go to the Procedure Committee to argue for the present system to stay. In essence I agree with the committee and the Leader of the House about the strictly limited nature of the role of our Speaker and the vital need, on which most of us agree, to protect self-regulation. So why am I proposing the amendment? The answer I hope by now is simple and understood by all. I cannot see that the work to be done justifies the creation of a major new post.
	Currently, we have a very part-time Lord Chancellor—that is, as Speaker—and a relatively active Chairman of Committees. When I look at the roles proposed for the new Speaker in the report, it is hard to see that they make up a full-time role. Most of what is proposed is to be taken from the Chairman of Committees, leaving him with much less to do. The risk is to end up creating two half-time jobs on full-time pay. What will people outside the House think of that?
	I have to say that to me everything points to the familiar office we now have—that of Chairman of Committees—assuming the limited additional roles relinquished by the Lord Chancellor. The committee has worked hard to carve out a role for an additional new post, but it has not convinced me. Yet what is proposed for this limited office is a dedicated staff, possible occupation of some at least of the Lord Chancellor's suite, a pension analogous to the Lord Chancellor's, and a salary appropriate, in the report's words, to that of the Chairman of Committees. Given that their functions would be roughly divided, that salary could not be less than £80,000—it could be considerably more—unless the SSRB decided that the salary of the Chairman of Committees should be cut. I find that inherently unlikely.
	Parliament, parliamentary salaries and parliamentary pensions are under scrutiny today as never before. People will naturally ask, if we were able to function without this expensive post in the past, why do we need it now? Frankly, I would feel uncomfortable answering that question, and I suspect so too would many Members of the House. So I suggest that, rather than jump into creation of a full-blooded new post, we try an evolutionary change—a word used by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks. Let us begin with the assumption that the Chairman of Committees and the Speaker be one and the same, just as the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker were one and the same too.
	If we find that the roles are indeed too onerous to combine in one office, then we can change that at a later date in the light of experience, building on this report. In the same light, the detailed question raised by my noble friend Lord Geddes in his amendment can be discussed between now and 30 June, if my amendment is accepted, and we can resolve the issue of a Deputy Chairman in the House Committee after due consideration. It is not an issue that needs to be resolved today.
	That is why, while agreeing with the Leader and the committee on most of its recommendations, I propose this modest but significant amendment. It is in line with the will of the House not to have a regulating presiding officer and with the will of the House to have an election. It builds on what we have and carries forward reform in a practical and economical way. That would be the common-sense House of Lords approach and, as such, I beg to move.
	Moved, As an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the Lord President, in line 3, after "approved" to insert "except that the office of Speaker should be combined with that of Chairman of Committees".—(Lord Strathclyde.)

Lord McNally: My Lords, it is always extremely difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at his most reasonable, because he is so persuasive. He was so persuasive when he tried to persuade this House to accept none of the reforms on which the proposal before us today is consequential. When plan A failed, he turned to plan B, which was to make our current Lord Chancellor the most loved Lord Chancellor, and certainly the most loved Labour Lord Chancellor, who has ever sat on the Woolsack. "Do not leave us, Charlie!" was his plaintive cry. Now that plan B has failed, we have before us plan C.
	I make it clear from these Benches that, like the Leader of the House, I will vote for the report and for none of the amendments. As is known, the troops behind me are as disciplined as any herd of cats that one could wish to find. I will therefore be marching into the "Content" Lobby with a hope and a prayer.
	There is one point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I read in the newspapers that the Lord Chancellor is contemplating taking up squatters' rights in his extensive accommodation. Perhaps I may quote a former Liberal leader who escaped the attention of the Sun. As Mr Gladstone said, "Bag and baggage . . . out".
	I hope that we look at this report in its entirety. As the Leader of the House said, it does not please everybody. However, I have to say that it pleases me a lot. Those who read it will see that I was given a torrid time by the committee when I gave evidence, but I was amazed to see that most of the recommendations came very close to what I had been arguing. So I have great pleasure in endorsing the committee.
	We should think carefully about the role of the Leader of the House at Question Time. I would prefer to leave the responsibility with the government Front Bench because that works very well. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, serves as a model, as he is decisive. The arrangement breaks down only if the Front Bench do not do their job. If government Front-Benchers do their job, the whole House will accept it.
	I worry that once the House turns automatically to that Chair for guidance and decisions, you will begin to get the role of a Speaker in this place. The full thrust of our evidence was to keep to self-regulation. I watch some of the old retreads coming into this place from the other place and almost wanting the discipline of the other place, which the Speaker provides. I have gradually, the longer that I have been in this place, begun to understand that self-regulation is one of our distinctive attributes. I look with suspicion at any proposal that moves from self-regulation to that Chair. That is why I am very glad that the committee was supportive of that.
	As for the title, every time I come through that door I see a little notice that refers to the Lord Speaker, which seems to have been up there for donkey's years without the world ceasing to turn on it axis. It is a perfectly sensible title—it means what it says on the tin. Although I could pick out bits of this report that do not go as far as I should like, or which go further, the report gives the House what the overwhelming majority of us have wished for—the ability to keep hold of our own affairs and to go in an orderly way to this new task. I hope that we shall resist all the other siren voices that we hear this afternoon. We should vote for the report and against all the amendments. We can move forward with a Fabian proposal—with "the inevitability of gradualness".

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I have spoken in the House most recently, on 12 July, about the Speakership, and I gave evidence to the Select Committee which is fully recorded in its report. Once again, I should indicate that there are differences of view among the Cross-Benchers, as among others, but I hope that what I say will be helpful to the House.
	There are three reasons why we should come to some decisions today. First, there is the fact that it will now be possible for the office of the Lord Chancellor to be held by a Member of another place, and we would then in any event have to elect a Speaker or take some other step to replace the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
	Secondly, we have already passed the Motion of 12 July last year. We relaunched the Select Committee to make recommendations on the role and responsibilities of the Speaker, thus setting off a process that has arrived at the finishing line—namely, an agreed report covering all those points. I pay tribute to the Select Committee and its chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for presenting the report, with which I very largely agree. I attach importance to the fact that it is a unanimous report.
	Thirdly, it is quite clear that the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor have expanded as he holds the office of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs; reference has been made to that. That may be why the Motion today seeks approval of the Select Committee report and also sets a timetable for the move to the election of a Speaker.
	Before turning to the amendments, I should like first to say that the passage of time and the arrival of the second report have not changed the key point—namely, the need to keep a self-regulating House and to avoid a situation in which the Speaker's role might risk prejudicing that. I want to emphasise that point, although we may have moved beyond it. The whole House is the master of its fate. I have made it clear throughout that I wish to avoid the slippery slope and that, in a self-regulating House, points of order or rulings by a Speaker are to be excluded. The present report is oriented strongly against going down that slippery slope, which is very welcome.
	Without prejudice to self-regulation, I was prepared to go a little further in my evidence to the Select Committee by accepting that the Speaker might give the same advice to the House—no more, no less—than the Leader of the House does now when there is excessive competition for supplementaries at Question Time. That still seems reasonable. However, the Select Committee, in its second report, has clearly opted for the status quo. If so, so be it. That illustrates the careful, not to say cautious approach to the role of the Speaker in the Select Committee and, I believe, in the House.
	I turn briefly to the amendments. On the first amendment, evidently it is the Chairman of Committees himself—who will speak shortly—who can best advise on the workload and the practical application. For myself, while I recognise that the role of the Speaker will be very constrained within the Chamber, I think it probable that his or her role outside the Chamber will steadily increase. The truth is that the role of non-political spokesman for the House at home and abroad and the educational role are now hardly done at all. I really think that we shall need both a Speaker and a Chairman of Committees. I am for the one-for-one proposal—out goes the Lord Chancellor, in comes the Speaker—and a minimum of disturbance of the other arrangements affecting the committees.
	Although I realise that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, have not been moved, their subject is covered by the report and we can comment on that, and I shall do so very briefly. I would not like to pass up my first opportunity, after seven years in the House, of disagreeing completely with the noble Lord. On the title, the Select Committee's report is succinct and, in my view, convincing. "Lord Speaker" is the existing title—it is in the Standing Orders, in the Companion and in the Constitutional Reform Act. It should be kept. There is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
	On the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—namely, the question of the guardianship of the Companion—I incline to the view expressed by the Select Committee, and specifically in evidence to the committee by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and by others.
	I therefore think that we should go ahead as the Motion proposes. However, life Peers also suffer from nostalgia. I am indeed sorry that we shall be ending the presence of the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack, since this link with one of the oldest offices in our land is part of our history. I understand that perhaps the first Lord Chancellor, Angmendus, existed in one of the kingdoms of our land in 605 AD, although it is not recorded whether he had a woolsack. Let us at least hope that the office of Lord Speaker in this Chamber will have an equally long life—that is to say, until 3407 AD.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Convenor of the Cross Benches, as always. It is almost exactly two years since the House debated our previous report, and the membership of the present committee is exactly the same as that of the previous one, except for being joined by—and, we would all agree, enriched by the presence of—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who is in his place.
	I start by thanking my fellow members of the committee. It was a great honour and pleasure to act as their chairman. I emphasise that the report before the House is not the work of one but of us all. We should be especially grateful for the help which was provided at all times by our Clerk. The House has moved slowly in the two years since 2004, but that is as it should be. Only if we move slowly in these important matters are we likely to reach a consensus—and consensus in a matter as important as this is surely highly desirable.
	At the end of his speech in 2004, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, hoped that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would use the usual channels in an attempt to seek broad cross-party consent. He then added these words:
	"If we are to have a Speaker, how much better that the role be born out of consensus than be a child of division in this Chamber".—[Official Report, 12/1/04; col. 389.]
	I only hope he is still of the same view. That is certainly still my view, and I hope and suspect it is the view of the great majority of the House.
	It was on 12 July last year, as has been pointed out, that the House decided in principle that we should elect one of our own Members as Speaker in lieu of the Lord Chancellor. It has been our task to fill in the detail, not to say when that election should take place—that has always been a task for the House as a whole, and has been put before the House today.
	By our terms of reference we were specifically required to have full regard to self-regulation. In paragraph 7 of the report we have set out what we believe self-regulation means. It is my opinion—and that, I believe, of all the members of the committee—that none of our proposals departs in the least degree from the principle of self-regulation. In our previous report we followed the advice of the late Lord Williams of Mostyn in two main respects: first, we adopted his phrase that the Speaker should be,
	"the guardian of the Companion",
	and, secondly, we accepted his advice that the role currently performed by the Leader of the House at Question Time should be transferred to the Speaker.
	Those proposals found favour with a great many Members of the House, but it would be idle to pretend that they found favour with the House as a whole, and I do not do so. Clearly they did not. The trouble with "guardian of the Companion" was that it implied, even if it did not say, that the Speaker was to be the sole guardian. That—as I recall the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out, as did many others—would have been inconsistent with self-regulation, because under self-regulation we are all guardians of the Companion.
	The role of the Leader at Question Time, when he or she acts on behalf of the House as a whole and not on behalf of a particular party, was seen by many Members of the House, during the debate following our last report, as in some way symbolic of self-regulation. To transfer that small but important role to the Speaker would, it was said, not only diminish the role of the Leader herself, but could be the beginning of a slippery slope that would end in points of order and a Commons-type Speaker, which none of us wanted. That was what we gathered from the debate as a result of our last report, so it was clear to us that if we were going to reach a consensus in the House we would have to think again, and that is what we tried to do.
	At the start of our deliberation we came from very different standpoints. There were those who supported the original proposals as they stood, but there were those who supported the dissenting views expressed strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. But gradually during our deliberation we inched towards a common view. I should not like the House to think that it was easy. Many different drafts were circulated. Almost every sentence in paragraphs 13 to 23 of the report was the subject of debate, but in the end we reached agreement, as set out in those paragraphs.
	The essence of the agreement was simply that, first, the Speaker's role at Question Time should remain exactly the same as the Lord Chancellor's role at present, and there should be no change in the Leader's role. Secondly and equally importantly, at other times the Speaker, the Lord Chairman and indeed the Deputy Speakers should have the same role as any other Member of the House in advising on matters of procedure. In footnote 12 on page 8 of the report, we gave a good example of how that might help the House. We did not see the very limited role of the Speaker outside Question Time as a slippery slope. Indeed, we did not see it as a slope at all. To some extent—this was confirmed by the members of the committee who had experience of being Deputy Speakers—that already happens.
	Whether that is right or not, we saw it as a package. We all agreed that if we allowed that package to be undone at all, the whole thing could unravel and that would be the end of any hope of consensus in the House today. Therefore, I was concerned by the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. However, she has been kind enough to write to me today to explain the meaning of her amendment, which is simply to honour the commitment that we set out in the report.
	Lastly, I come to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Of course I can see the attraction of combining the roles if possible. It would save money, but in our view it would not work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said in the 2004 debate, the Lord Chairman is already overloaded. The full extent of his workload is set out on page 33 of our first report and supplemented on page 35 of our second report. No doubt we shall hear shortly from the noble Lord himself. Whatever he may say, our view was clear: if we were to add the role which we see for the Speaker to the existing role of the Lord Chairman, heavy as it is, both roles would suffer.
	What is the new role that we foresee? It has already been well explained by the Leader. First is the ambassadorial role, representing the House overseas, which is currently undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. In his view, it is an important role and is likely to increase in the future. Here, I very much agree with the views expressed by the Convener. Secondly, there is the representational role at home—what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, called the educational role—getting across to the public what the House of Lords is really for. Thirdly, and subsidiary to those, is the receiving of important foreign visitors. In our view, all those are worthwhile roles that could not really be combined with the existing duties of the Lord Chairman.
	I do not think that the public would regard it as extravagant to have in this House a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker. Even if one assumed that, at the outside, the net additional cost of the Speaker and any secretarial staff he might have was of the order of, say, £200,000—that is simply a figure plucked out of the air—that would still represent only a little over 1 per cent of the total wage bill of the House, which is currently £15 million. In any event, we surely ought not to let any question of cost, small as it is likely to be, determine what we decide today.
	I started by saying that I hoped that we would reach consensus on this matter. I end by saying that, if we are to have a Speaker, then I hope we will do it properly, and in a manner and style befitting the House.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I declare an obvious interest, since many of the proposals in the report will affect me in my role as Chairman of Committees—although I hope that they will not affect me quite to the extent that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggested when he discussed salaries. I will therefore restrict my remarks on the proposals to practical matters.
	On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as I said in evidence to the Speakership Committee, if the only role envisaged for the Speaker is the minimal function of opening the House and sitting on the Woolsack during Questions each day, as the Lord Chancellor does at present, there might be some attraction in combining the offices of Speaker and Chairman of Committees. However, the proposal is open to two objections, one practical and one of principle.
	First, as the report makes clear, it is envisaged that the Lord Speaker, as has been said by many, will take on a greater range of functions than merely sitting on the Woolsack. He or she will have duties outside the Chamber, including a representational and educational role. That would be in addition to the job that I already do as Chairman of Committees. The two jobs could be in competition over the time needed to do them properly.
	Secondly and more importantly, there is an irreconcilable difference between the role of a Speaker, who is obliged to sit in silence on the Woolsack or in the Chair, and the role of the Chairman of Committees, who has to take part in debates, make Statements and answer Questions. The House will be aware that, when I present domestic committee reports in the House, I do so from the Front Bench; someone else has to sit as Speaker. I cannot be in two places at once—nor should I be. The functions of Speaker and advocate are different.
	The Speakership Committee has recommended that the Speaker should chair the House Committee. That is a good recommendation, but only if someone else acts as the spokesman of the committee in the House. In addition, presenting reports and answering Questions can, and does, become quite controversial at times. I do not mind that, but it would be inappropriate for the dignity of a Speaker to have to deal with such matters.
	Similar considerations apply to private Bills. The Chairman of Committees has a central responsibility both to advise the House on procedure and, with his counsel, to maintain the quality of private legislation in Unopposed Bill Committees. It would be inappropriate for the Lord Speaker to take on a role in private legislation which the House expressly wishes to keep from him or her in public legislation. Should the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, be carried, therefore, I hope that a number of these issues would be reconsidered.
	I will leave it to others to speak to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, but I shall speak briefly to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. In giving evidence to the committee, I agreed with the idea that the Speaker should take the role of the Leader during Question Time. Since then, however, having read the report, I see the force of the argument that the Leader's role at Question Time has a symbolic significance, as she visibly represents the interests of the House as a whole. I am therefore ambivalent about this issue, and thought that I should make this clear, in case my original view was prayed in aid of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton.
	I am broadly in agreement with the proposals of the main report, particularly regarding the role of the Speaker within the Chamber. From my experience, it has often struck me as odd that the only person in the Chamber who is unable to assist the House when it gets into procedural difficulties is the person sitting on the Woolsack. The role for the Speaker set out in the report—that he should assist, but not rule—gives him no more powers than those already enjoyed by every other Member. Allowing him to intervene in this very limited way will not threaten the principle of self-regulation but should help to keep the business moving. I therefore support that recommendation.
	However, I have some reservations about the proposed role of the Speaker in relation to Private Notice Questions. I fear that there could be a temptation to test a new Speaker out by asking for a greater number of PNQs; I can only hope that this temptation will be resisted. The report gives the Speaker hardly any new powers in the Chamber and it would be unfortunate if, on his first day, his decision on a PNQ was challenged on the Floor of the House and he had to justify it from the Woolsack. I am not an expert on procedure in the House of Commons, but I understand that it is virtually impossible to challenge the Speaker's ruling on such Questions. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, nods in agreement. Should the House decide to give the Speaker a role in PNQs, I very much hope that it would give our Speaker similar protection to that given to the Speaker in another place.
	I agree with the report that it is desirable that each Deputy Speaker should normally undertake three hours' duty per week, but I disagree that this means that there should be a panel of 12 deputies. By my calculations, in a typical week when the House sits Monday to Thursday and a Grand Committee sits on two days, there are 27 slots of one and a half hours. If the Speaker sits on the Woolsack for two slots each day, as the report suggests, and the Chairman of Committees continues to sit on the Woolsack for one slot each day, only 15 of the 27 slots would be left. On this basis, I think that there is a need for only eight or nine active deputies, rather than the proposed panel of 12. The problem could be solved if one or two of the deputies were "inactive", as they are at present. I refer to the Government and Opposition Chief Whips who, although on the list, do not normally take on the duty.
	Incidentally, I think the recommendation that the Speaker have two slots of one and a half hours a day should not be set in stone. In my evidence to the committee, I suggested that the Speaker would probably want to be in the Chamber for important business and votes, so greater flexibility by both the Speaker and his deputies will be needed than at present exists.
	A number of less important points need addressing. One concerns the procession at the opening of the House. I hope that a proper ceremonial procession continues, as in my observation it is certainly popular with the onlookers in the Peers' Lobby. It should continue to follow the route it does now and should be led by a Doorkeeper, followed by the Mace, then the Lord Speaker; and, as now, Black Rod would join it in Prince's Chamber. I am sure the House would agree that that would be preferable to the mini-procession that I do as Chairman of Committees when opening the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, starting as it does only in Peers' Lobby. I make that point because I am sure there are other issues with which the Procedure Committee will be busy between now and June.
	It remains only for me to congratulate the committee on the thorough manner in which it has performed its task. While I do not necessarily agree with the detail of every recommendation, overall the report strikes a good balance between giving the Speaker the authority to represent the House and keep the business moving, and fully respecting the tradition of self-regulation which, I think, we all wish to preserve.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord—

Lord Geddes: rose to move, as an amendment to the amendment standing in the name of the Lord Strathclyde, at end to insert "and that a Principal Deputy Chairman, not being Chairman of the European Union Committee, be appointed to assist, and when required deputise for, the Chairman of Committees".

Lord Geddes: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, Amendment No. 2 comes before Amendment No. 3, although perhaps my mathematics is slightly wrong.
	When asked directions to Ballybunnion, the well-known Irishman—why an Irishman I have no idea—is supposed to have replied, "I wouldn't start from here if I were you". I rather wish that we were not starting from here, but we are. My amendment seeks to deal with the practicalities of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, which I fully support. What concerned me was the baldness of that amendment. It did not spell out the real situation as outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, that to put the two roles of Lord Speaker and Chairman of Committees into one role will greatly overload that person. Whether that person is male or female is irrelevant in this context.
	That is why I suggest that, rather than going for the election of a Speaker over the top of the Chairman of Committees—if I may put it that way—my suggestion would be preferable and, dare I say it, infinitely less expensive. However small the cost, I do not deride it. On an earlier occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said 1 per cent. When one adds up the total package of the Lord Speaker, I would not be surprised if the cost came to around a quarter of a million pounds. For me, that is not a small amount, although it may be for other noble Lords. I would prefer another situation where, in order to relieve the burden of the joint role of Speaker/Chairman of Committees, a nominated Principal Deputy Speaker would be appointed, at infinitely less cost, who could fill in and deputise for the Speaker/Lord Chairman of Committees when he is on other duties. The precedent for that is touched on in paragraph 42 of the excellent report, a great deal of which I agree with. It states:
	"Standing Orders should provide that the Chairman of Committees may act during any vacancy in the office of Speaker".
	Effectively, I am saying the same thing, only with a nominated Principal Deputy Speaker to fill in on those occasions.
	I have been mildly castigated for bringing in the chairman of the European Union Committee. Paragraph 47 of the report clearly and entirely rightly states that we should do away with the nonsense of the chairman of the European Union Committee—he has an immense workload on his shoulders; indeed, he is in Brussels today leading a delegation—being paid as the Principal Deputy Speaker. That should go. The chairman of the European Union Committee should be paid as such, and I bring him into my amendment so that there should be no doubt that, when my amendment mentions a Principal Deputy Speaker, it does not mean the chairman of the European Union Committee. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the amendment standing in the name of the Lord Strathclyde, at end to insert "and that a Principal Deputy Chairman, not being Chairman of the European Union Committee, be appointed to assist, and when required deputise for, the Chairman of Committees".—(Lord Geddes.)

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I understand that I should speak to my amendments without moving them at this stage. I say to those noble Lords who, explicitly or otherwise, have criticised my amendments that I like them too much to criticise them in return. Like most noble Lords, I like consensus, but I prefer it round something that I have already agreed, again like most noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who knows how much I regard and respect him, would like his report to go through as it is, as would my noble friend Lady Amos. I am sure that she will forgive me for mentioning that, because, from the evidence that she gave to the committee, she seems to be opposed to the idea of a Lord Speaker; indeed, she specifically said that she prefers something else, as does the—I now understand—much loved present Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. He, too, is opposed to the idea of a Lord Speaker, as I am. I ought to explain to noble Lords why.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I have never before been described as a retread or a siren voice. After 23 years in your Lordships' House, I do not consider myself a retread at this stage. I have never been accused of being a siren voice because I love this place and I have never sought to do it any harm.
	Most speakers so far have overlooked the essential, central issue that the more we enhance the role of the Lord Peer on the Woolsack, the more we jeopardise the very self-regulation that we all want. That is why I am proposing to move the first amendment standing in my name. I very strongly agree with everything that the Select Committee says about the need for self-regulation. I doubt if anybody in your Lordships' House is opposed to the idea of self-regulation. However, I fear that if we carry on with a Lord Speaker, as the report suggests, that will do positive damage to self-regulation.
	My noble friend Lady Amos and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have spoken about the idea of having a Lord Speaker when there is a Speaker in another place. Paragraph 14 of the report refers to a "widespread concern" of a "slippery slope". I imagine that all of us would go along with that. On the other hand, what we do not want—and what nobody in your Lordships' House wants—is a Commons-type Speaker. My noble friend—if I may call her that, as she occasionally sits on my Bench—Lady Boothroyd is much loved by everyone and she was a tremendous Speaker in another place. Although she and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill—who I am sure everybody wishes well and a quick return here—both wanted a Lord Speaker, I hope that they will accept that they were a little prejudiced by their own success in another place. At all costs we do not want a Speaker with anything remotely like the powers of the Speaker in another place. That is one of the main reasons why I am opposed to the idea and prefer the idea of a Lord or Baroness Presiding Officer.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I prefer "Lord Speaker" because, internationally, "Presiding Officer" is a term that is used for Speakers of both lower and upper houses—it is general term used for all who take the chair. I therefore wish to discriminate between a Speaker and a Presiding Officer.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I respect the views of the noble Baroness, but I believe that it would confuse the situation even more if we had two Speakers, one in another place and one here.
	Paragraph 8 of the report states that there is,
	"overwhelming weight of evidence . . . against a House of Commons type speaker".
	The more we go along that path, the more danger there is. I hope that I have persuaded at least some noble Lords to accept the amendment when I eventually come to move it. I hope to see a majority for the amendment, but we will have to wait and see.
	I now move to my second amendment, which, again, is self-explanatory. The report has been much praised. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and other members of the committee will not mind my saying that, despite the fact that they worked very hard on what is an excellent report, in one respect at least I found it both confusing and contradictory. I refer to paragraphs 9, 17 and 22.
	In paragraph 9, reference is made to the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was a wonderful leader of your Lordships' House. He referred to the need to have a "guardian of the Companion". In the report, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that that might imply that all responsibility would rest with the Speaker. That is clearly not the case. The Companion spells out very clearly that anyone—whether the Peer sitting on the Woolsack, the Leader of the House or anyone else who offers advice—can be overruled by your Lordships. Noble Lords do not have to accept the advice; we are talking about advice and not about an authoritative ruling which says, "It has to be that". It does not have to be that any more than we have to agree with every word, dot and comma of the report that we are discussing. This is a self-regulating House and we accept advice, as today we accepted the advice from my noble friend Lord Grocott. We did not have to accept it; indeed, at one stage I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was going to object to it, as he could have done. Equally, we do not have to accept the advice of the Leader of the House, a Whip, or someone sitting on the Woolsack who tells us who is to speak next at Question Time. This is a self-regulating House. That deals with paragraph 9.
	My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is that there is no such implication that authority rests with the Peer sitting on the Woolsack. He simply offers advice; that is all that he can do under the terms of the Companion. One only has to read the Companion to recognise that that is the situation. Yet we are told in paragraph 22 that most interventions quite rightly comply with the rules and would continue to do so. Then I find a rather remarkable statement: on failure to comply with the rules, we are told that the Speaker may not be able to do the job any better—or, indeed, worse—than Whips on the Front Bench. In my experience, while Whips on the Front Bench may appreciate what the rules are, they are not always quick to advise the House that the rules have been broken. I do not believe that it is right to suggest that they would know better than someone sitting on the Woolsack who is advised by the Clerks of your Lordships' House under the arrangement that the committee suggested. Unlike the House of Commons, the Clerks sit a fair way from the Peer sitting on the Woolsack, but electronic procedures are recommended and I would welcome that. So whoever sits on the Woolsack would take the good advice that we always—almost always—receive from the Clerks in your Lordships' House. I never like to be too dogmatic about such matters.
	Paragraph 17, referring to the Peer sitting on the Woolsack, says:
	"Such advice should be strictly limited to . . . guidance".
	Of course, that is precisely what the phrase "guardian of the Companion" means. Anyone who reads the Companion must be clear that we are dealing only with advice from the Peer sitting on the Woolsack or from anywhere else. I would not dare to advise anyone what to do here, because noble Lords all have their own views, even if they seek consensus sometimes. In one sense, the idea about the Companion is rejected in paragraph 9 and partially reinstated in paragraphs 17 and 22. Therefore, I hope my second amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I want to get the tone of what the noble Lord is saying absolutely right. He is proposing the term "guardian of the Companion". Would it be "the" guardian or "a" guardian? If it were "a" guardian, that would be pari passu with everyone else; whereas if it is "the" guardian, that would mean someone higher. We need to know which it is.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to move an oral amendment to my amendment, I would be happy to accept it. I hope that I have made clear to the House what I have in mind in moving my second amendment, which I shall do later. For now, I hope that I have made clear what the House may want to see and may well, at the appropriate stage, go along with. However, if, at a later stage, the House wishes to make it even more crystal clear that we are talking about only advice from the Peer sitting on the Woolsack—who I hope will not be called "Lord Speaker"—we could amend the Companion to that effect. Later I shall turn to the amendments themselves.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, there was considerable discussion in the Select Committee about the transfer of the role of the Leader at Question Time to the Lord Speaker. In the light of the evidence presented to the committee, members of the committee decided not to recommend changing the present position. However, the evidence was fairly limited and, as members of the committee had very differing views, we specifically stated that this was a matter for the House to decide. I have put this amendment down in that spirit to honour the words of the report agreed by us all, to give the House the opportunity to hear the arguments and to take its own decision.
	This issue was first discussed by the previous Select Committee, which recommended the transfer of the limited functions at Question Time from the Leader to the person occupying the Woolsack. We were very much influenced on that occasion by the evidence presented to us by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, who said that he found the role invidious—a view that was reiterated by my noble friend Lady Amos, from her experience. We should take the views of the two Leaders extremely seriously. The proposal for change was also supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boothroyd and Lady Williams of Crosby, in their oral evidence. I might well also have quoted the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Brabazon. I see that they may have had a change of mind, but perhaps they will change it back again before the end of this afternoon.
	As today, the contrary view was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The argument is that any addition to the role currently performed by the Lord Chancellor would be a diminution of self-regulation. I disagree, because I believe that self-regulation would be maintained. I further disagree that such a move would inadvertently change the role of the Leader. My view, which I indicated to the Select Committee and which I said I would be supporting in the Chamber, is that the Lord Speaker should take on the Leader's role at Question Time. Choosing from among those seeking to ask a supplementary question can be difficult in the Leader's position on the Front Bench—it is especially difficult to know whether someone behind wishes to intervene. The Woolsack is the only position that gives a full view of the Chamber.
	It must also be stressed that the Lord Speaker would not be expected to call Members by name. Rather, he or she should ensure that the courtesies of the House are maintained by following the tradition of questions being asked from around the House. If there is more than one speaker from one party, or from the Cross Benches, the choice should be made by the House or by the Front Bench of the party in question.
	That extra responsibility would fit in neatly with the other proposals in the report for the role and functions of the Lord Speaker. For instance, as has already been referred to, the Lord Speaker would sit on the Woolsack at Question Time and would spend a longer time in the Chamber either on the Woolsack or in the Chair, presiding over a stage of a Bill. There are a number of occasions when guidance is currently given to the House by the person presiding. In actual fact, we already look to the Woolsack for guidance—the Select Committee proposes a very marginal extension of that role. I appreciate that some Members are concerned that adopting that proposal would enable the role to be further extended. However, that would not happen if the role of the Lord Speaker was clearly and strictly codified in the Companion, to maintain standards and preserve self-regulation. There would be no selection of speakers from the Floor, no selection of amendments, no guillotine and, crucially, no points of order. The last point would be guaranteed by the Lord Speaker having no ability to rule on points of order, as noble Lords would continue to address the House.
	As I will not have a further opportunity to speak in this general debate, I would like to add one point. These additional responsibilities, and the other responsibilities outlined in the report, both in and out of the Chamber, make it clear that the job is too onerous to be combined with that of the Chairman of Committees. That case needs no further elaborations, as it was put so succinctly by the Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. I completely agree with his view.
	In conclusion, I believe that the proposal for the role of the Lord Speaker at Question Time would be a sensible addition to the other functions that are outlined in the Select Committee report. I hope that it will receive the support of the House later this afternoon.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, the Select Committee deserves our appreciation for the work it has done over a long period, and I am grateful to it for its courtesy to me when I gave evidence. Not having spoken earlier in debates on this matter, I now seek to place on record some of my thoughts in dealing with the main issues in the report.
	Our debate could not be timelier. Last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, listed the two principles he believes should shape our future. They were,
	"the primacy of the House of Commons and the need for accountability of the second chamber".
	None of us disputes the former, nor need we fear the latter. The harder the Government try to make us more representative, the more influential we become, as Ministers and opinion outside Parliament are beginning to realise. But we have a problem, too. It is how best to adjust to changed circumstances in the way we manage our affairs. The terms of the report were narrowly drawn, and that was understandable. The House is jealous of its rights and privileges, and I applaud that.
	My perspective is conditioned by my experience as a Member of the other House in a number of capacities and by my confidence in the strength of our institution. I believe that the duties we entrust to our new Lord Speaker will enable us to conduct our proceedings more effectively and enhance our public standing at a critical juncture. A strong Speaker, acting within the rules, does not mean a weak House, as many imagine. A Speaker elected for his or her judgment, impartiality and sensitivity would not undermine our traditions or distinctive ethos as a civilised debating chamber, free from the tumult and rancour of another place. There is certainly no wish on my part to go down that road.
	The report's acceptance of the "slippery slope" argument poses a false antithesis, in my opinion. The principle of self-regulation is good, but I do not think it is any longer working as it should. The report fears that giving the Lord Speaker the power to remind Members of their obligations could lead to a Commons-type Speakership. I reject that. A Commons-type Speaker is unnecessary; it is incompatible with our traditions, and nobody wants it or would suffer it—least of all ex-Speakers of the Commons. The small changes advocated do not conflict with the need for self-regulation and old-fashioned courtesy which the report rightly sets such store by—quite the reverse. We do ourselves no service if we ignore some of the barnacles on the Companion to the Standing Orders and miss the opportunity to remove them.
	I listen regularly to your Lordships asking questions and making comments that have little to do with the business before the House. I observe Ministers doing their utmost to reply to detailed supplementary Questions that go well beyond the substantive Question on the Order Paper and for which we cannot expect them to be briefed. In my mind's eye, I visualise a library littered with ministerial letters answering questions which bear no or little relation to the substantive question that has been tabled. I submit that a little personal self-regulation would not go amiss in this respect.
	The other day I witnessed a very brave Government Whip remind one of your Lordships that he should be speaking to the amendment and not making a Second Reading speech. The Whip did so with great tact and gentleness, if with a rather pink face. But he got Brownie points from me.
	That is something that happens frequently and I do not think it should be the Government's responsibility to correct it. It is a matter for the whole House, not the Government. It is a test of our willingness to practise what we preach when we talk of self-regulation. The House will be better served if the limited functions of assistance and guidance are transferred to the Lord Speaker; if the functions of the Speaker were to be codified in the Companion, such assistance and guidance would not lead to poor conduct or challenge, because the ambience of this House is different from that of the other place.
	In this respect I would commend the supplementary memorandum from the Leader of the House to the Select Committee. As the noble Baroness rightly says, giving the Lord Speaker the limited functions currently undertaken by the Government Front Bench in guiding members merely involves,
	"someone else doing something which is already done".
	To use her examples, the Lord Speaker would point out if a Member was speaking to the wrong amendment, or overrunning in a time-limited debate. The very idea seems to have made the Select Committee shake in its shoes. The report tells us that enforcing such time limits is a "sensitive matter". The implication is that the Lord Speaker, who has won our confidence through election, who is impartial, and in whom there can be no conflict of interest, cannot be trusted with sensitive matters. It is something that I cannot accept and I do not believe that this House should accept it either.
	Let me turn to the representative role. Representing the House at home and overseas will become an important function for the future occupant of the chair. It is crucial that we get across to people, at home and abroad, the significant work carried out by this House. Much of that responsibility falls to the Chair. Having committed ourselves to the teaching of citizenship, there is substantial work explaining to foundations, to universities, to business, to commercial groups and the like what we do here and why it matters. There is an interest out there in our own country; that interest is growing and it needs to be met.
	The report speaks of conferences such as the Commonwealth, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Union. I have absolutely no doubt at all that individual legislatures will be keen to have our Speaker meet with their constitutional committees and to address their plenary sessions to learn of the changes made and our role in this bicameral Parliament. I am not pretending that the same volume of invitations will come the way of the Lord Speaker as came to my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and me. But let me tell you this. Our Parliament may not receive the respect it deserves in some quarters of our society, but I know from personal experience that it is held in high regard by overseas legislatures who wish to learn more about our ways and means of doing business.
	I enter a caveat here. The report accepts the importance of the Lord Speaker in representing us outside the House and providing wider understanding of our work. I subscribe to that and can testify to its value. However, the first duty of the Lord Speaker is to this House when it is in session. I trust that whoever is elected will make his or her presence a priority, and be prepared to set aside non-sitting days and parliamentary recesses to carry out representational functions, wherever they may be. With negotiation and advance planning with other bodies, I know it can be effectively accomplished.
	I welcome the recommendation that the number of Deputy Speakers should be reduced. I would prefer, for effective working purposes, that number to be three or four, and for them to be remunerated. The House of Commons manages quite well with only three deputies and a similar number should be sufficient for your Lordships' House. I have come to this conclusion because I envisage that a small panel of deputies, acting as a working group, would provide daily support and continuity to the Speaker and to the Speaker's office, as well as bringing a degree of continuity into this Chamber. I believe we would all be better served by a very small number working alongside the Speaker on a regular daily basis, with a short morning meeting with the Clerks so that together they can have a wash-up session on what happened the day before and go through the current day's business in preparation. There is no substitute for homework as far as I am concerned.
	Currently, the Principal Deputy Chairman is also chairman of the European Union Committee. As the report suggests, he seems to be paid for the little he does in the former role rather than for his heavy responsibilities in the latter. It would seem more sensible to abolish the office of Principal Deputy Chairman and provide proper remuneration for the chairman of the European Union Committee. The Chairman of Committees would retain the title in addition to being designated as Principal Deputy Speaker, with, as I say, a very small panel of deputies giving the daily support and continuity that both the Lord Speaker and this House should expect. Perhaps after a period of experience and reflection, the Procedure Committee may wish to look at that.
	I believe that an effective Lord Speaker will enhance the efficiency and prestige of this House at a time when what we say and decide here has never been more important. At the present time I am inclined to vote against all the amendments, with the exception of the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, although I think it is limited in its application. I urge the House to seize the opportunity and be not afraid.

Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who was the first lady Speaker in the House of Commons and, if I may say so, one of the most distinguished. I start by declaring an interest as a Deputy Speaker in both Houses of Parliament.
	I add my tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and his committee for the difficult job which he conceded that he would have in trying to reconcile the almost irreconcilable. First, he had to reconcile the long tradition which this House has of self-regulation with the concept of an elected Lord Speaker who has a useful job to do, while at the same time avoiding the problems associated with the type of Speakership that the House of Commons has.
	The report—the Leader of the House also referred to this—points out that it would be very odd if the only person in your Lordships' House who had no say in self-regulation was the Lord Speaker. The committee addressed this problem and suggested that the Lord Speaker should be able, in a gentle way, to give some guidance and advice on procedural matters. It stated:
	"His function should be to assist and not to rule".
	As a cynical old politician, I doubt whether this will hold even in your Lordships' House. I believe that advice would be regarded as ruling from the Woolsack. Therefore, how are we to avoid getting into the dreaded position of points of order? Such alien content would quickly be stopped in its tracks if your Lordships' House on every part were to show its strong disapproval. That would show self-regulation operating at its best.
	That would be reinforced by a clear and unqualified paragraph in the Companion, which I hope would be sent round to all members of your Lordships' House before a Speaker was elected. That would give a good chance that the Lord Speaker on the Woolsack would have a light touch and some say in the conduct of your Lordships' House without getting into a wholly inappropriate position that may be acceptable in another place but would be contrary to your Lordships' House.
	I turn to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde with his usual eloquence. As I see it, and I speak as someone who has sat as a Deputy Speaker under a number of Lord Chairmen of Committees, the Lord Chairman of Committees has a full-time job, not only in this House but mostly in-House. It seems to me that there is also a job—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, made this point—to represent your Lordships' House in functions outside. I am thinking not only of the great affairs of state that take place in Westminster Hall and the Royal Gallery and so on, but of other Parliaments.
	I had the privilege of serving on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association executive for a number of years. I was very impressed by the number of people in Commonwealth Parliaments who still regard us as the Mother of Parliaments. They need our advice, and it is not only in the Commonwealth but in other countries coming out of dictatorship which are building up their parliamentary institutions. They need advice and guidance from us. It seems to me that we need a Lord Speaker who will have the status and the time to be able to fulfil that role.
	There are three functions in which I believe that the Lord Speaker should play no part. The first is the speakers' list—the batting order. As far as I understand it, it works well. The usual channels decide and there is not any particular argument for the Lord Speaker to have a part. Let us keep what works working satisfactorily. The second is the selection of amendments. As your Lordships know well, one of our prides in this House is that any noble Lord who has an amendment on the paper is free to move it or to say "not moved". I hope that that right will be retained and that there will be no question of the Lord Speaker having any say in the selection of amendments.
	The third point concerns Private Notice Questions—PNQs. The report suggests that the decision on this matter should be referred from the Leader of the House to the Lord Speaker. With great respect to the Select Committee, I beg to differ. The Select Committee says that such matters are "often politically sensitive". Whoever makes the decision has to decide whether to accept or reject the request. If the request is rejected, the chances are that the Peer concerned will feel not best pleased. If it is accepted, a Minister will have to change his diary very fast, get himself briefed, and come down to the House to answer the Question. That Minister is unlikely to be best pleased. To put a new Speaker in that delicate political position would be somewhat embarrassing. I would leave it where it is. In making decisions on these matters, the Leader of the House is not doing so as a party politician; he or she is doing it as the Leader of the whole House. I would leave it where it is.
	If your Lordships decide to have an elected Lord Speaker, it will involve a big change in our traditions and customs. We have had many changes previously in our long parliamentary history. Our forefathers have usually managed to blend the old with the new without destroying continuity. I can only hope that we in this generation, if we decide to have an elected Speaker, will manage to do the same, and that history will repeat itself.

Lord Peston: My Lords, our focus in this debate should really be the work of your Lordships' House. I think that we all agree that this work consists primarily, although not entirely, of scrutinising government legislation, contributing to the making of policy and setting the political and policy climate in our country. Fundamental to that in this House is self-regulation. I echo other noble Lords in saying that that requires courtesy, reasonableness, a willingness to compromise and a tendency to be party political only when necessary rather than all the time. I know that this makes us seem rather boring to some, especially as compared with the other place, although I suppose that I must refrain from making any further comment on the other place.
	I shall turn to what follows from this shortly. I regard all other matters in the report, such as who represents the House at home or overseas, dress—that is, the fundamental question whether a gown but not a wig should be worn—precedents and the like, as fripperies.
	I return to the central theme. The role of the presiding officer is to facilitate self-regulation. My late noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn coined the excellent, indeed felicitous, phrase, "guardian of the Companion". That expresses precisely what I believe. But my noble friend the Leader of the House said that we have moved on from that. As someone who has always prided himself on being part of the avant-garde, I obviously accept what she said. Therefore, I content myself with the alternative expression of "facilitator of self-regulation".
	Procedural guidance should fall to the presiding officer, but this must always be guidance and no more. Therefore, I do not accept the committee's recommendation that the role of assisting the House should on some matters remain with the Leader. More broadly, I do not accept that there has been no deterioration in the way in which we scrutinise legislation or the way in which the House behaves. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, made that clear.
	I am told that the Companion is not always explicit about the rules—for example, what may be done at Third Reading, how many times you may speak and other such matters. I can only say that, during all my years in opposition, there seemed to be no ambiguity whatever about those things. I suppose that I shall be accused of cynicism if I then add that it is only when we have a Labour Government that what is permissible seems to change. Therefore, I believe that self-regulation, based on the Companion, is both feasible and desirable, with guidance.
	To summarise, I would rather that the presiding officer—not the Front-Benchers—was the person who advised the House on time limits and on individual Peers sticking to the rules. On the title, I certainly prefer the term "presiding officer", because it gives us—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has already made this point, but I repeat it—at least a partial guarantee that the role of the Speaker will not be enlarged and will certainly not be like that of the Speaker in the other place. What follows from that is that, since the role will be that of a facilitator—and, I hope, strictly limited—any staff for the presiding officer should be at the absolute minimum and should certainly not be left to the House Committee, especially if the presiding officer is the chairman of that committee.
	On the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, let me add that the various tasks set out in paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the report read as if the committee, having accepted that the presiding officer should be full time, with a full salary and pension, suddenly realised that it had better find something for the presiding officer to do and so invented these things so that it would not look as if he or she was being overpaid.
	I always feel obliged in this House to tell the truth, so I conclude by saying—in case it is not abundantly clear—that, unlike all other noble Lords, I really do not think much of this report. I find it totally impossible to congratulate the chairman or the members of the committee, as I do not think that the report remotely does the job. It lacks logic and it lacks evidence and, if the House divides, I should try to find a way in which to vote against it. I certainly do not accept the argument that we should accept it simply faute de mieux because otherwise we shall have to have another one of these debates.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I shall make three observations on the report—and in support of it, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
	First, the character of this Chamber differs markedly from the other two in which I have served—the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament—and should continue to differ markedly from those other two chambers. When the Life Peerages Act 1959 was going through Parliament, I was studying constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh. I remember still the sentence that the late Professor JDB Mitchell dinned into us about the House of Lords, because it came up as an examination question later. He said that the House of Lords was the only institution in the world kept efficient by the persistent absenteeism of the majority of its members. That of course was true—and is still true to a certain extent. But the fact is that the House is changing, is continuing to change, and the election of a Lord Speaker is part of that process.
	I firmly agree with the report's conclusions that none of those changes should alter the nature of our proceedings. Courtesy and self-regulation are the hallmark of this Chamber and mark it out as different. Frankly, I get a little concerned when I see some of my fellow refugees from the other place arriving here and bringing with them some of the unnecessary, petty party point-scoring, which is an inevitable part of an elected chamber. We do not have to impress our electorate, our constituency parties or the editor of our local newspaper. It is all entirely unnecessary. Because we are not elected, we are in a far better position when we stick to the arguments before us—even when they are of a partisan nature—rather than importing the sucks-yah-boo tendencies from the other place. As long as we retain our decorum, there is no need for an interventionist Speaker.
	Secondly, contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I believe that the role of the Lord Speaker will turn out to be more important outside the Chamber than within it. I want to quote what is probably the smallest paragraph in the report, paragraph 31, which says:
	"In addition to overseas visits the Speaker will take over the Lord Chancellor's role in entertaining visiting speakers and parliamentarians from abroad".
	I give the House a word of warning: that innocent little paragraph contains a real trap. When I became Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, I was well aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, quite rightly, regularly uses other people in public life to help to entertain its many visitors—for example, Mr Speaker, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Presiding Officers in Scotland and Wales.
	The burden in my case was, frankly, so unexpected that I concluded that there must be a cell of civil servants in the basement of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office saying to all visitors as they arrive, "Go ye unto Edinburgh and see this thing which has come to pass", because the flood was remarkable. I had only two deputies, and we all shared in that burden. However, on one occasion I remember that we had four lunches; I had to corral the convener of the education committee to entertain a visiting education minister.
	I seriously fear that that might become a much greater part of the Lord Speaker's role than the innocent little paragraph in the report suggests. On another occasion, I remember the Foreign Secretary asking me if I would mind entertaining the president of an African country. Since Robin Cook is, sadly, no longer with us and that president is no longer in office, I think that I can tell your Lordships that I found the president a complete pain in the neck—and I told the Foreign Secretary so afterwards. That was in happy contrast to having President Mbeki of South Africa visit us as part of his state visit.
	My point is that the role will, I fear, be much greater than the report suggests. The Lord Speaker will find him or herself having to host endless visitors. It will be important that their staff keep a note of the countries of interest to your Lordships, so that appropriate people can be invited on those occasions. I fear that future Lord Speakers will find themselves eating for their country as part of the job.
	My third observation is to support strongly the committee's conclusion in paragraph 28—and the evidence given to the committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby—on the educational and public relations role of the future Lord Speaker. Let us be frank; the role of this Chamber really is not understood widely in the country. The reason is, partly, that we are only ever covered in the media when we are in conflict with the House of Commons or the Government, or both. Yet we have three distinct roles, which ought to be made clear to the public.
	First, there is the painstaking scrutiny and amendment of legislation, which we do rather well. Secondly, we hold high-level debates on subjects using the expertise in our midst, such as in our debate before Christmas on climate change. The other place cannot manage debates of that character. Thirdly, there is our important capacity to delay, or to require the elected Chamber to think again—a particularly important power during years when the government of the day happen to have an overwhelming, artificial majority in the other place, as has occurred during both the Thatcher and Blair governments. The Lord Speaker needs to be able to address multifarious audiences. I would like to see a future Speaker fronting a short DVD which could explain our role in a much clearer way and be distributed widely to schools, colleges, universities and libraries.
	As one of your Lordships has already said, that role has to be non-partisan. The 2003 report of the committee said that this person will need to be "someone of considerable stature", which makes me think that it may be an ideal job for a retiring bishop. What we need, in short, is someone who will be decently reticent in the Chamber and highly articulate outside it.

Lord Higgins: My Lords—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross-Benchers.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the more one listens to this debate, the more one recognises the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in saying that we should accept the report in its entirety and reject all the amendments. I say this for two reasons. First, it is clear that as soon as you start picking at the edge of the report, it begins to unravel. If one person's point is taken, someone else's point goes the other way, and you start unravelling until suddenly the whole knitting falls apart. Secondly, many of the things for which amendments are being made on hypotheses are things that we could do in the future if those hypotheses proved true, but which we would find very difficult to reverse once they had happened. The clearest example of that is the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Along with the noble Lord, I think anything that has a slimming-down effect is highly desirable, but we must not prevent this report working before it has been given a chance.
	The most common complaint made by Members of this House is that their work is not understood or appreciated outside the House. This report gives us an opportunity to have someone to deal with that; to give this House the proper explanation and publicity it should receive in public, both at home and abroad. If you roll the two roles into one, you make it impossible to do that. If you allow two roles—those of the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees—you allow that to be tried. If that is a dismal failure, and no one wants the Lord Speaker to come and explain to them what we do or represent us overseas, in five years' time we could say, "These are only two half-jobs—amalgamate them". But if they are amalgamated from the start, the Lord Speaker will never have the opportunity to fulfil that role of representing, explaining and justifying us to the public. If you scupper that from the start, you will never be able to build it again.
	Let us accept the report, and let us, if any of these people's fears prove right, come back in three or four years' time and make some further adjustments to the situation.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am glad the noble Viscount got in ahead of me, because I agree with every word he said. I join enthusiastically with those who have congratulated the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on his chairmanship of the committee. He had an unusually difficult task. He chaired the original committee; then the assumptions the committee had been forced to make turned out not be valid, and he was asked to do the job again. I think he has done so in an extremely efficient and courteous way.
	I found myself also in a slightly strange position because, together with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I was the only new boy on the committee, which had already expressed very firm views on nearly all the subjects we had to consider. I am therefore glad that in the event, under the noble and learned Lord's chairmanship, the committee in fact changed its view quite radically on a large number of the issues on which it had been asked to report.
	I still deeply regret the fact that we will not have a Lord Chancellor sitting on the Woolsack, but it became apparent that there was a threat—I use the word advisedly—that the Government might appoint a Lord Chancellor in the Commons. In those circumstances the individual might not be prepared to serve, and as a result we would have to sort out the whole of this business at very short notice. But it is unfortunate that we have not managed to retain that title, given its historic significance.
	We were trying to deal with two problems. One was what you might call work-sharing, and the other was the question of self-regulation. So far as the first is concerned, paragraph 24 is crucial:
	"The evidence we have received suggests that there is a case for combining the role of the Speaker with some of the functions now performed by the Chairman of Committees. We have already indicated that the new Speaker should spend much more time on the Woolsack than the Lord Chancellor does at present".
	When I first saw the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I thought that he was simply supporting what the committee said, but almost immediately I realised that that was not the case. We were suggesting that the present role of the Lord Chancellor—which is minimal, although we thought that it should be undertaken more enthusiastically—and the work of the Chairman of Committees should be divided more evenly. In that circumstance, there are two jobs to be done.
	It is also the case—this is an important point rather ignored by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—that some jobs now done by the Chairman of Committees would not be appropriately done by the Speaker, and we spell that out in some detail. But, perhaps more importantly, if the two jobs were carried out by only one person, that person would not have a deputy. Clearly there are circumstances when the person on the Woolsack has to be away or has other duties to perform. As was rightly pointed out by my noble friend Lord Geddes, the present role fulfilled by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is quite separate and does not really provide back-up in any sense for whoever happens to be on the Woolsack. It is abundantly clear that if only one person were doing both jobs, there would certainly not be time for him to fulfil any of the important functions which many Members, and indeed the committee, see the new Lord Speaker fulfilling either within the Palace of Westminster or, perhaps more importantly, beyond.
	For all those reasons, I do not support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and I hope that, on reflection, he will feel that it is appropriate to withdraw it.
	There is also the whole question of self-regulation. I refer here to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. For 40 years now, depending on which sides of the House we are sitting, he has proposed amendments to which I have objected or I have proposed amendments to which he has objected. If noble Lords were to go through the Finance Bill records, I think they would find thousands of examples where that situation has existed. But I believe that the noble Lord is wrong to resurrect the idea of a guardian of the Companion. I suspect that once someone on the Woolsack is said to be the guardian of the Companion, inevitably—this point was made by my noble friend Lord Elton—he will become so, and that will lead us towards a House of Commons-type Speaker, to which many of us are fervently opposed. We need to bear that point in mind.
	I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness and the whole question of self-regulation. I believe that Question Time is now working a great deal better than it ever has done during my time in the House because the Front Bench is more active. Those on the Front Bench are occasionally a little dogmatic. I think that they should phrase their interventions in terms of reflecting the will of the House rather than just saying, "It is now the Liberals' turn", as someone said the other day, or whatever it may be. That is an important aspect, and I profoundly believe that it is right to leave Question Time as it is. We do not want a House of Commons-type Speaker intervening at Question Time.
	The other situation where self-regulation can be rather difficult is on occasions when the Government Chief Whip indicates that, in order to finish at a reasonable hour, each of us should speak for, say, 10 minutes. The reality often is—particularly if one is waiting to speak next—that the person on his feet does not stick to that rule. I do not think that any Member does it with malice aforethought. I think they do it for two reasons: either they did not notice what time they got up and therefore do not realise how long they have been going; or perhaps they are reading their speech and are quite incapable of bringing it to a conclusion unless they get to the end.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I therefore draw your Lordships' attention to footnote 14 on page 9, suggesting that we should have a clock, similar to that in the House of Commons, which starts flashing when the person on his feet has been speaking to within a minute of the time when he ought to sit down. When he reaches the limit, it flashes very fast indeed. This would ensure that people do not go over the time limit. Certainly, if it is flashing, the House itself is more likely to suggest that perhaps we have heard enough of whatever it is that the noble Lord happens to be saying. While this is in a footnote, it is not an unimportant point.
	Overall, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, pointed out, this is a unanimous report; there was a considerable degree of compromise on a number of points. It would be helpful to whoever takes over this task, however, if there was as little dissent as possible this afternoon. I therefore hope—along with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—that we can agree to the report, which should provide a foundation for us to move forward, given that we have been put in this position by what the Government have done about the Lord Chancellor.

Lord Carter: My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on the two Select Committees. There were two points in our report which we left for the House to decide: timetable and Question Time. The point of the timetable, for the election and so on, has been handled in the main Motion. My noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton has tabled the amendment on Question Time because we left that to the House to decide.
	With my experience on the two Select Committees, I hope that the House will not accept the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Geddes. The two committees have worked hard on this, and identified the two full-time jobs of Lord Speaker and Lord Chairman. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, gave us some powerful evidence to support our view. He is doing the job of Lord Chairman—very well indeed—and his advice should be taken on this.
	On what we rather grandly call the ambassadorial role, I am sure that I am not the only noble Lord who is invited to speak on the House of Lords to seminars, academic institutions and conferences around the country. I never cease to be amazed at the degree of ignorance of otherwise well informed people about the work that we do. Anything we can do to the role of the Lord Speaker to improve that is worthwhile.
	The amendment of my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton on Question Time must be put to the vote so that we can decide one way or the other. The Select Committee said that this was a matter for the House to decide. We must do that. The issue is a simple one, as we know: should the Lord Speaker take over from the Deputy Speaker in a limited role at Question Time? If the amendment is agreed to, the Companion will clearly state the strict limitation on that responsibility.
	I know that, for some noble Lords, the prospect of a Lord Speaker saying, "I think it is time we moved on", is equivalent to hearing the tumbrels rattling around Parliament Square. I ask your Lordships to consider some practical points. Let us think of the first great day—the first time the Lord Speaker processes in. No doubt there would be a packed House and Gallery, with the media present and giving their full attention. All the dignity and history of the Speaker's procession would be followed by nothing. He or she would sit for 30 minutes in complete silence while the House carried on, ignoring him or her. I am not sure that that is in keeping with the dignity of the House. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House conducts her role well at Question Time, as have her predecessors. A member of the Executive is controlling the House, which holds the Executive to account at Question Time. We decided that a member of the Executive should not be on the Woolsack but we wished a member of the Executive to supervise our Question Time.
	I know that there is much concern about slippery slopes, thin ends of wedges, and so on. Our Lord Speaker can do only what the House allows him or her to do. The Companion will lay that down precisely. We say that we are a self-regulating House and are proud of it but we are not. When we have a problem at Question Time, the Leader of the House sorts it out, and sometimes the Government Chief Whip has to intervene. Those of us who have the role of Deputy Speaker break the rules; to guide the House when it is going wrong, we intervene although we are not supposed to do so. We all know what we mean by self-regulation. Would not it be better to have a Lord Speaker effectively to take over the roles I have described?
	I have made this point previously. In this House, there is no such thing as a point of order precisely because there is no one to rule on it. So long as our standing orders in the Companion state that the House is responsible for its own order, the Lord Speaker will be constrained by that and self-regulation will work.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I may—

Noble Lords: Cross Bench!

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the last sentence of paragraph 16 states that the role of assisting the House at Question Time is a matter for the House to decide. The paragraph states:
	"We therefore accept the evidence we have received which supports the conclusion that the role of assisting the House at question time should remain with the Leader and not be transferred to the Speaker".
	I think that we have been slightly misled. It is indeed a matter for us to decide but the committee expressed a view. That should be pointed out.

Lord Carter: My Lords, as a Select Committee we had to reflect the evidence we received, which we have done. My own view is that, if we had had a vote in the committee, there may well have been a majority for the shift of the responsibility. We did not take a vote. I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, shakes his head; I am not sure I agree with him. The point was that we reported on the evidence we received, which was our job. The House has to decide what it wants to do.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, first, my noble friend Lady Boothroyd said that Peers should be quicker to regulate themselves. In 1979, when I first came to the House, if two Peers had risen together to ask a supplementary question at Question Time, they would both have sat down, saying, "No, after you". It would be very nice if we could return to those courtesies.
	Secondly, with the greatest deference to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, ex-Presiding Officer of the Holyrood Parliament, I do not think that Lord Presiding Officer is a suitable title for whoever takes the place of the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack. At present, the Lord Chancellor's deputies are called Deputy Speakers. Therefore, I think that Lord Speaker is the correct title.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and his committee for producing an extraordinarily good compromise in difficult circumstances. However, I doubt whether its two main propositions are consistent. The first one, with which virtually everyone concurs, is that this House must remain self-regulating. I am absolutely of that view. I think that we too easily accept the extraordinary way in which this place carries on from hour to hour and day to day with a minimum of time lost and a maximum of politeness. This is an environment within which nobody feels afraid to say what they want to say. But I believe that that golden achievement will not survive a Speakership with the role given to it by the committee.
	The new Speaker—I much prefer the title proposed in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, but let us talk of the Speaker—will apparently be an ambassador for this House in the country and an ambassador for visiting politicians. He will be responsible for education about this House in the country at large, and will apparently be responsible for security. He will become a Privy Counsellor. Above all, he will, for the first time as far as I am aware, be an office holder of this place elected by this House. I am not sure that there is a precedent for that in our entire history. It is unrealistic for anybody to suggest that, with that panoply of power, authority and prestige, things can go on here as they have heretofore. One has only to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, speak to have a sense that, if she were our first new Speaker, the prospect of her remaining timidly on that seat saying nowt and with no clout cannot be visualised. We must face the reality that if these powers are given to whomever we elect, it will be goodbye to self-regulation as we know it. Self-regulation has a delicate chemistry. I am so concerned to preserve the extraordinary virtue of our self-regulation that, if this report is voted on, I shall vote against it.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I want to make only one general point and raise one specific issue. The general point can be very quickly made because it was admirably made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and by my noble friend Lord Higgins. I agreed with almost everything they said. This is one of the very rare occasions when I cannot support my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Having listened to all the speeches in the debate, I have been forced to one clear conclusion—that I should support the report of the committee so admirably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Once you start accepting one differing argument you are led down a path of disruption and fracture that I think will lead us into a great deal of trouble. I will therefore warmly endorse the support of the committee.
	The general point has already been raised in a rather tentative way and I would like some answers on it. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde gently teased the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about a once-stated view that he would like to be out of this place and in Selborne House, which I believe is where his office is. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, also ribbed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a little on this. Paragraph 50 of the report before us states:
	"The rooms recently occupied by the Lord Chancellor, his Permanent Secretary and his private office are likely to provide more than enough space for the Speaker and any staff, and we leave it to the Administration and Works Committee to settle the arrangements".
	I would like to know whether the arrangements have been settled or whether they are likely to be settled in the near future. Surely the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, having decided to remove himself from his historic role, cannot want to retain the perks of his spacious accommodation but will, like all other Cabinet Ministers, be content with the relatively modest offices that they occupy.
	Those who have been Cabinet Ministers in another place will know that along the Cabinet Office corridor there are a number of perfectly useful and acceptable rooms. In my time—and I believe it is the case today—Cabinet Ministers did not feel they had to have their permanent secretaries, staff and assistants with them in this place. It would come particularly ill from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has told the Law Lords that they must move to not very salubrious premises on the far side of Parliament Square. I hope that having taken that decisive bid for leadership, he will now follow the route that he has set and quickly make these spaces available—and not just for the new Lord Speaker. Incidentally, I hope he will be a Lord Speaker and not a presiding officer which alarmingly reminds me of the Welsh Assembly.
	I hope that the Lord Chancellor will do that because, within the last few weeks, two committees of this House have had to sit outside this building because there are not enough committee rooms available. I hope that we will receive an assurance that the spaces will be made available and that we may have some additional committee room space in this House.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I would like to speak to the very narrow issue raised by my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton. This issue may well not be dealt with in some detail during the course of proceedings and it is important that we address the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who had an open mind on that issue during his contribution.
	I am very much in favour of deregulation. The delicate chemistry referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is an issue of which I am very conscious. Will noble Lords consider what happens in Question Time in this Chamber and how that is considered outside this House? I do not know if Members of this House often speak to members of the public about what happens in Question Time in this Chamber, particularly when there has been a fracas on the Floor with a conflict between Members shouting to be heard. This offers a very undignified spectacle of the way we conduct ourselves in this Chamber.
	Some noble Lords may say that they will leave such matters to a noble friend or those on their Front Bench to resolve, but it is sometimes impossible for them to know what is going on behind them. Furthermore, it is extremely embarrassing for them to have to rise during the course of our debates and select between two Members on the other side of the House who are arguing about who is to be heard. These matters should be dealt with in a far more delicate way and there should be an independent person who can unravel those conflicts very quickly before they develop into some of the difficult circumstances which we have witnessed on a number of occasions—certainly during my time here.
	Secondly, has anyone ever stopped to wonder who it is that asks most of the questions as supplementary questions during Question Time in this Chamber? If you look at the records of our proceedings over recent weeks—and this is true also of my memory of proceedings long before that—you will find that it is invariably Members who have been in the House of Commons or who have the courage to get up and take on conflict when it arises. There is a distinction between those who ask Questions only when they have tabled them themselves, knowing that they will not be involved in conflict, and those who are prepared to stand up at Question Time to ask supplementaries. I know from conversations with my noble friends that some people in the House simply avoid being heard at Question Time because they do not want to be involved in such embarrassment. There must be some other way of dealing with these issues.
	My final point may not have the unanimous support of my colleagues. It concerns the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has on his Front Bench every day of the week during Question Time. I sit here with my noble friends and we notice what is happening. Yesterday was an ideal example. Although Question Time is for Back Benchers, in my view, the Opposition Front Bench should be heard. To me, the voice of the Opposition Front Bench is quite important in winding up Question Time and trying to establish the opposition position. I have often noticed noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench wondering when to intervene. I have watched the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, talking to his colleagues about the stage at which they should intervene. Should they intervene in the middle, whereby they cut out their noble friends on the Back Benches—they do not want to do that because they do not want to interrupt the debate and the to and fro of Question Time in any way—or should they intervene later? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is nodding. He knows that goes on every day of the week.
	The result is that as the Clock ticks round and as we get nearer to the eighth minute, all panic ensues on the Opposition Front Bench. I do not say that out of any sense of criticism. The reality is that because they want to be courteous to their own people, they find it very difficult to intervene until the last moment and, as it is the last moment, they find themselves in difficulties. Sometimes they are excluded. I have seen Members sitting on that Front Bench become quite angry. Only recently, I remember that two Members in particular were quite upset—the noble Baronesses, Lady Rawlings and Lady Miller. Both were unsettled when they found that they could not be heard because of the way that Question Time rolled.
	I am trying to address the issue that the noble Lord wanted us to address when he said that he had an open mind and that he might be convinced by the argument if there were a substantial argument. I think that this is a very substantial argument as it affects the Opposition Front Bench. Only yesterday, my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport—I say this without any disrespect to him—intervened at the 29th minute.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but the noble Lord is in danger of being out of order by speaking from the Gangway.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, that may have more to do with my posture and my physical condition than with any wish to be discourteous to the House. Only yesterday there was a typical example. At the 29th minute, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, rose to ask a question and my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport rose at the same time. My noble friend was heard and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave way. He was not pleased to give way, but he gave way.
	Some of my noble friends believe that Question Time is for Back Benchers and that these matters are not of great importance, but I think that they are important in so far as there is a role for the Opposition Front Bench at Question Time. The reality was that yesterday the Opposition Front Bench lost out. There has to be some means by which that matter can be redressed. It is impossible for that problem to be sorted out by my noble friends who sit behind the Dispatch Box and cannot see what is happening around the Chamber. We need someone sitting on the Woolsack who can see the whole House and who, at the end of each Question, is prepared to say that it is now the time of the Opposition Front Bench. I ask for that just at Question Time and I ask for no more intervention than that. I ask the noble Lord to take that into account.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that he has watched people being anxious about whether they should intervene. Most people have had to cope with that problem. I have had that problem the whole of the afternoon but I thought it would be courteous to leave my modest and probably disreputable intervention until later. I feel sorry for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who was castigated by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for having produced a rotten report. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, must have been thinking of the boy whose first half-term report said "Trying" and whose end-of-term report said "Very trying". I associate myself with those who congratulated the noble and learned Lord and his committee on the work that they have done. It was not easy and they have done a very considerable job of work.
	Everyone appears to want the continuation of self-regulation. That has come out forcefully in the report and this afternoon in the debate. If we gave the new Speaker the obligation of being guardian of the Companion, he would have considerable and increasing authority. I rather like the words of the Leader of the House when, using a lovely phrase, she said in her evidence to the committee, "I think we have moved on from that".
	I am glad that the report suggested that the Leader should retain the duty of assisting the House. We all know the complications of logistics, but on the whole that has worked well. I gather that it will be the government Whips who will continue to advise the House on speaking times and that the function of the occupant of the Woolsack will be to assist and not to rule. That is an important and a neat distinction. The idea of installing some form of electronic wizardry so that the Clerks can be in touch with the Woolsack about 15 yards away seems to me bizarre. I think it would be inelegant, vulgar and inappropriate and I hope someone will find another way of doing that.
	In the end, where do we all stand? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that he cannot manage one and a half hours a week as Speaker, that he wants to get rid of that as he has other responsibilities to carry out and that if he got rid of those responsibilities, life would be a great deal easier. I have often wondered what those responsibilities are and how the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who is in his place, managed them. He was present a lot in the House, as were the late Lord Hailsham and the late Lord Gardiner, who was assiduous in his duty to the House. He was here hour after hour, way beyond what was necessary for a Speaker.
	If the noble and learned Lord does not want to undertake the responsibilities associated with his office, he should do the proper thing and resign. Plenty of people have done that when they have jobs that they do not like. In effect, he is saying, "I do not want to do this and I'm going to make sure that no one else does it either, so I am going to get rid of the office". That is rather like the boy who says, "I don't like that chocolate, but I'm going to see that no one else has it either so I'll throw it down the pan".
	I believe that this phase on which we are embarking is most regrettable. After all the advice that the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has taken into account, what will the new Speaker do? He will not run the House; he will not be the guardian of the Companion; he will not vote; he must not be bossy; but he will be Speaker for one and a half hours per week.

Noble Lords: Per day.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, he will attend other outside functions as well, whatever they may be. I do not find this at all convincing. We are trying to find reasons for a post which is not justified. As we have heard, this person will be paid a large salary. The committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, originally said £100,000. They back-pedalled on that and said, "Let somebody else decide". But he will require a staff and everything else. And then where would his premises be? As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell says, they will presumably be in the Lord Chancellor's Department in the House of Lords. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is now a departmental Secretary of State with premises outside your Lordships' House, he cannot be expected to need or retain the use of rooms the purposes of which he has discarded. I do hope that we will be told that the Lord Chancellor's premises in your Lordships' House will be vacated by the present incumbent and made available for his successor.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. There cannot be work for both a new Speaker and a Lord Chairman. Not only would that be extravagant but, especially after the noble and learned Lord's report, there would be nothing of importance for the new Speaker to do. I hope that your Lordships will agree with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
	The fact is that we have all been put into this desperate situation of manipulation in order to try to find a way around the unnecessary and tragic problem of the constitution yet again being assaulted. The Government call it modernisation, but it is not modernisation. It will not be an improvement and everyone knows that things will not be better. It is, yet again, an example of the Government wrecking the constitution.
	There is one slender ray of encouragement. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde quoted the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as saying that he wanted to "be in his department". That is what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde understood. I will just quote what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in evidence to the first committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. He said:
	"I make it clear I will go on doing the job of Speaker of the House of Lords for as long as the House of Lords want me to do it".
	The House likes the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I hope—and I am sure that we all hope—that he will go on doing it for a very long while.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, tempting though it is always to follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his argument, I will self-regulate and do only what I intended to do, which was to challenge the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on his assertion that self-regulation in this House is so delicate a flower that it could not survive the implementation of the recommendations, considered and limited as they are, of the Select Committee on the Speakership of this House. I do not agree with that. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, in my assessment of the strength of the ethos and the culture of self-regulation in this House. I believe that it is robust, that it will be enduring and that it is quite capable of being not threatened, but enhanced, by the very limited and cautious proposals in the report. It pains me to take up my noble friend Lord Peston on logic, or my noble friend Lord Barnett on anything—I owed him £140 million for an aeroplane many years ago, so I really should not do so—but they are deluded if they believe that not calling the presiding officer of this House "Lord Speaker" will provide the defence against the role becoming that of a Commons Speaker. It is the role, not the name, that is important in this context.
	I was reflecting this week—it is just about 10 years since I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House—on why I had enjoyed being here so much more than I had enjoyed, privileged though it was, being a Member of another place. I think that it is to do with the strength and the enduring thread of that ethos and culture of self-regulation. That has to be preserved, but it has to be preserved in the changing circumstances that we are faced with. I believe that the report of the Select Committee gives us an opportunity to do just that.
	One other word: I have confidence in the strength of self-regulation, but I have less confidence that outside this House—or even, dare I say it, along the Corridor—the work of this House is very well understood. I suspect that I agree with many who have spoken that the priority of this post should be domestic rather than foreign. I believe that the educational and representational role of this House is very important. As well as looking at the threats to self-regulation and guarding against them, we should look at the opportunities that would arise if this House had a representative and an ambassador outside it.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it is obviously not without some sadness that we have reached this point. But we have reached it and we must be realistic about the future with regard to where we now are. Contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I think that the Committee has done an excellent job in a difficult situation. I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as the chairman, and all the members of the committee—both the previous committee and the present, augmented committee—for the work that they have done in putting together a compromise on which I hope the House as a whole will be able to agree without giving effect to any of the amendments.
	First, on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I believe that, if we had a Speaker on the lines suggested by the committee, there would be plenty for him or her to do. After all, there are the proceedings of the House day by day. He or she would have the option to attend the House as far as time permits. If the Speaker of the House did not regard the proceedings as important, we could not expect people outside to do so. When I had the honour of holding the office of Lord Chancellor along with, and being paid as, Speaker of the House of Lords, I tried to be here as often as I could. Certainly, one of the rules in existence then was that Cabinet committees or meetings did not take priority over the Lord Chancellor's position in relation to the opening of the House. I believe that there is plenty for the Lord Speaker to do in the way of being here and listening to what is going on, apart from anything else. That is always of considerable interest and the standard of debate is high. I do not feel able to support the amendment moved by my noble friend, particularly in the light of what the Lord Chairman has said about the responsibilities that he has. I have altered my views about this over the months, but I am very happy to accept the view of the committee.
	My second point relates to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, concerning the "Lord Presiding Officer". The Lord Speaker has been a phrase associated with the Lord Chancellor for a long time. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has pointed out, you only have to come in from the other end of the Chamber to see it. I also think that the name is enshrined in the Constitutional Reform Act. When the Government were altering the priority—it used to be the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons, in that order, and they wanted to put the Speaker of the House of Commons first—the title given to the presiding officer in this House was the Lord Speaker. We would be in some difficulty if we contradicted the Act, which is now on the statute book.
	I find my third point more difficult. It relates to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton—I should know her name because I was privileged to be present at her introduction. I feel strongly that this is a difficult and rather delicate issue. For my part, I would prefer to leave matters as the committee has recommended, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has pointed out, it was a matter for the House to decide. The committee's view was that this was better left as it is. As has been pointed out, it could readily be altered if it turns out that something similar should happen. I got the impression that the proposal was that the Woolsack should have the right to choose only the area of the House from which the person came and then it would be for the Front Bench—perhaps the Convenor of the Cross Benches—to say which if there was competition within one of the groups. That would make for a rather complicated procedure; if that is what is in mind, I do not think it would be a very wise step, but it could be revisited.
	I would like to see the report, as it is, passed by the House, if possible unanimously.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I think that it is time we drew this debate to a close. It has taken two hours and 39 minutes so far, and voting takes time.
	The longer this goes on, the more attractive the report becomes. It has been produced by a dozen of your Lordships. In addition, 52 of your Lordships have given evidence, and a further 10 have taken part today. That means that 74 of your Lordships have now taken part in producing the report or in its aftermath. "Self-restraint" was mentioned earlier, and I am going to indulge in that. We have had a substantial debate. I am like a lot of others—I do not agree with everything in the report, but I will accept it as a compromise.
	I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will keep going with his amendment, because not many seem to have said that it is a good idea. The case has been made that there are three jobs. However, it is not our job to suggest what the emoluments may be. We cannot say that there is £150,000 available, or whatever, which should be split three ways. That will be someone else's responsibility.
	Perhaps the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, is designed to get us back to where the report is. That is how I see it. On the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I am not keen on the title "Lord Speaker", but neither am I any keener on "Lord Presiding Officer". There is nothing in it. My suggestion was "Lord Woolsack" but if people cannot cope with such innovation, I will settle for what is printed on the door, and we will save on paint. I am not keen on the second amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, either, as I believe that it is everybody's job to be the guardian of the Companion.
	The amendment that concerns me most is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. The words "slippery slope" have been used because Question Time is a very important time in this House. Attendance is maximised then and the tone would be set. That is why people are so bothered about being self-regulating, particularly at Question Time. If people want to think further about this, I will give another suggestion. On whichever Bench the Question starts, who goes next should be determined by going clockwise or anti-clockwise. Then, at least, it would be only for the Benches to sort out. That suggestion may not find favour, but it is one way of sorting things out without the squabbles that sometimes arise, although we should not get over-excited about how often they happen.
	In conclusion, I say, "Don't bother with the amendments, support the report".

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I shall not attempt to respond to the whole debate, but I think that the House wants to move to a decision on these matters. In view of my normal activities, let me reassure your Lordships that, these being House matters, there will be free votes, and that I speak for myself alone.
	Like almost everyone else, I echo the gratitude to the Select Committee for its very hard work and its excellent report. With regard to the proposal in Amendment No. 3 about the title to be given to the Peer on the Woolsack, on balance, I concur with the Select Committee that it would be best to stick to "Lord Speaker", the title that has been used for some centuries in our Standing Orders and elsewhere. It has been approved by both noble Lords who have been Speakers of another place. I am not attracted to the title "Lord Presiding Officer". The term "Lord Chairman" gained some credibility at one time, but it seems inappropriate for someone who is going to sit not on a chair but on a sack. I support the title "Lord Speaker", particularly as we all seem agreed that this person will have to go around the country speaking to the nation on behalf of the House, in addition to the other duties involved.
	It will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to learn that I also oppose the other amendment in his name. When speaking to Amendment No. 3, the noble Lord waxed lyrical in his support for self-regulation, but I believe that Amendment No. 4 would potentially do much more to undermine self-regulation. He seemed at one point to be advancing a new Barnett formula, which I found difficult to understand. I had to struggle with the Barnett formula in the Treasury for a while.
	While the name of the office is of course significant, the role is crucial. I do not think that any one Peer should be the principal, let alone the sole, guardian of the Companion. We are all equally guardians of the Companion—the whole House is the guardian. We believe in self-regulation, not a regulator. We should set an example of self-discipline to the nation. It has not been mentioned much today, but one difficulty is that regulators inevitably lead to more regulation. I think that that would happen, as it did over the centuries in the Commons, particularly in the 19th century.
	I acknowledge that we of the usual channels have a special duty to help to keep the House in order and to correct Peers, either at the time or afterwards, if they have strayed from the Companion in some way. Senior Peers, too, have that duty, and nobody would do it better than the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I encourage him, with his tact and humour, to do so from time to time if he feels that someone is straying from the straight and narrow path. For that matter, I encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, to do that if she feels strongly that someone is straying. While mentioning her, I would have no objection if Ministers more often said that a particular supplementary being proposed was wide of the original Question and declined to answer it. The Companion says that they can do so; it also says that they can decline to answer more than two supplementaries. I say to my own people, and I am happy to say it to the House, that if you ask three or four supplementaries, you give the Minister the choice of which two to answer. Not only is doing that not in accordance with the Companion, it is also unwise. However, that is another point.
	I accept, because I think that we should try to accept the whole report, the limited role proposed for advice in paragraph 17. However, I think that if the Peer on the Woolsack were regarded as the guardian of the Companion, even if he or she were only available to give advice to the House, as has been suggested, he or she would be the one whose duty it is to say that a Peer has strayed, and not the usual channels or a senior Member. Like my noble friend Lord Dean, I believe that, given the habits of the House, advice from the Peer on the Woolsack would become, in effect, rules set in stone in around five minutes. I do not think that advice would be taken as anything other than rule.
	It would be only a very short time before someone suggested to the Woolsack that they should draw some Peer back on to the straight and narrow in a particular case, when that Peer were thought to be doing the wrong thing. In other words, we would have points of order, because that is what a point of order is. The Speaker in the other place is the guardian of the Standing Orders, so if somebody believes that the Standing Orders are being broken, the proper thing to do is to say so to the Speaker. That is a point of order; that is why they do it; and that is the danger that we are looking at here.
	There has not been so much talk of this today, but in earlier debates there has been talk of Peers overrunning their time. I quite like the suggestion of the flashing clock in time-limited debates. I am sure that we can look at the matter very carefully. On the other hand, the recent Unstarred Question on Palestine was scheduled for one hour in the dinner break. It was a timely debate, with strong feelings cutting across party lines. Because 16 Peers wished to speak, they were, apart from the opening speaker and the Minister, limited to two minutes each. Under stricter arithmetic—and I am an accountant by original profession—they could have had two minutes and 30 seconds, but our clocks are not that specific. In the event, every speaker stuck to the time and, at the end, the House had to be suspended for eight minutes to fill the hour promised for dinner. We can do it. Self-regulation works and is worth preserving.
	The Leader of the House was right to say in her evidence that we should not use the phrase at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was right to warn against it in his evidence, and again today. I got a bit confused when the noble Lord suddenly said, just at a time when I was not paying quite as much attention as I should, "Do not leave us, Charlie". I thought that he was talking about some other competition that was going on. Anyway, I realised after a moment what he meant. The committee was also right to step back from the phrase, as it did in its report. I hope that the House will oppose Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4 and will support the Select Committee's conclusions on those matters.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was not suggesting that Speakers' apartments should be used for some other—perhaps "Big Brother"—purposes. I said in my opening address that the House takes an evolutionary approach to change. Having listened to the debate this afternoon, I think that the House is now ready to make a decision. I do not intend to respond to all the points made in the debate, so I shall be very brief.
	It remains my very strong view that this House needs a strong independent voice, and I think a Lord Speaker will deliver that. Several Members of the House who spoke this afternoon addressed the question of whether there should be one role or two. I think that a convincing case has been made for two roles. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, gave us very clear evidence on the basis of his experience. Practically, there is too much work to do. There are also some duties undertaken by the Lord Chairman, which, in principle, the Lord Speaker should not do.
	Noble Lords have also spoken with great feeling about the need for a wider representational role, particularly a public education role within Britain. The House has also reiterated its view about the importance of self-regulation. The committee's report delivers, in the main, what the House would wish to see, and I hope that the House will agree to it.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, it is somewhat difficult to remember that, technically, we are now back at Amendment No. 2. I hope your Lordships will agree that I was sufficiently brief in moving my amendment; I just want to say that I am not convinced that there is, as outlined in the excellent report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and his committee, actually a job for a Speaker. That is a personal opinion, despite remarks that have been made. I totally concur that the present role of the Chairman of Committees is already onerous and that support would be needed if it were to be a joint role. I am, however, persuaded by many remarks made around the House, particularly those of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, that the details of assistance could be worked out at a later date. In that respect, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have been rather underwhelmed by the tremendous amount of support I have had, and I have a horrible feeling that in the Division Lobbies there would be a substantial majority in favour of the original Motion. I have also been immensely impressed by the debate that we have had, and particularly by those who have explained just what an important outside role this new Speaker would have. This, of course, was the nub of my argument. I was very much struck by the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. In light of that, and echoing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said about this being born out of consensus rather than division, repeating something I had said earlier, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Barnett: rose to move, as an amendment to the motion standing in the name of the Lord President, in line 3, after "approved" to insert "except that the title of the office should be "Lord Presiding Officer"".

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I have listened to the whole of this debate with very great interest and pleasure, although I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that I had no intention of moving a new Barnett formula; as he will well know, I do not like the existing one. I do not resile from all that I said initially; I believe that there is a serious danger, if we have the title of Lord Speaker, to the very self-regulation we all care about. I therefore beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the motion standing in the name of the Lord President, in line 3, after "approved" to insert "except that the title of the office should be "Lord Presiding Officer"".—(Lord Barnett.)

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Noble Lords: Not Content.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Not-Contents have it. We now move on to Amendment No. 4. I call the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, it is Amendment No. 3. I have moved it.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, if I might assist the House, I think the Not-Contents had it but the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, called "Content", which means that we need to clear the Bar.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, forgive me; my hearing must be deficient. I have called Amendment No. 3; the House has expressed a difference of opinion and I therefore ask your Lordships to clear the Bar.
	Division called.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 3 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Noble Lords: Not content.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Not-Contents have it.
	On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord Barnett: had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the Lord President, in line 3, after "approved" to insert "except that in carrying out the duties recommended in paragraph 17 the Lord on the Woolsack should act as guardian of the Companion".
	 The noble Lord said: My Lords, I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had in mind to move a manuscript amendment to include the word "a" in this amendment, which I think would make it more amenable to your Lordships—but where is he? He had it in mind, so he informed me, to move an amendment to my amendment to turn it into "a" Companion, not "the" Companion—

A noble Lord: "A guardian of the Companion".

Lord Barnett: My Lords, "a guardian of the Companion". I thought that would be more amenable to the House, as did the noble Lord, Lord Elton. But I cannot see him—he is not here to move his amendment—so I cannot move my amendment.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: rose to move, as an amendment to the motion standing in the name of the Lord President, in line 3, after "approved" to insert "except that the Leader's role at Question Time should be transferred to the Lord Speaker".

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of my amendment. I stress again—and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt—that we are talking about the person on the Woolsack actually going round the House, which is supposed to be the procedure of the House as it currently is. In the tradition of the House, the Select Committee made it absolutely clear that it was a matter for the House to decide. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the Lord President, in line 3, after "approved" to insert "except that the Leader's role at Question Time should be transferred to the Lord Speaker".—(Baroness Gould of Potternewton.)

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 176.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fraud Bill [HL]

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Commencement and extent]:
	[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendment No. 29A:
	Page 8, line 21, leave out "or"

Lord Goldsmith: Amendment No. 29A is very interesting. Section 24A of the Theft Act 1968 makes it an offence—it is technically an offence of theft rather than fraud—for a person to retain a credit made to his account if he knows or believes that it derives from fraud, theft, blackmail or stolen goods. The person need not have been involved in the crime. Criminal liability is triggered simply by his knowing that his account has been wrongfully credited and his dishonestly not seeking to cancel that credit. That is the background to the amendment. It is a technical amendment, because it would expand the existing definition of "account" in Section 24A to provide that electronic money accounts will be covered by the offence in the same way as conventional bank accounts when funds are wrongfully credited to them. Amendments Nos. 29C and 29D refer to Northern Ireland.
	On 25 January, I wrote to the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, providing details on the substance of these government amendments. I hope that that was helpful. But as this is the first time that this matter comes before the Committee, I should say a few more words about the amendment.
	Electronic or e-money is defined as monetary value. It is represented by a claim on the issuer, stored on an electronic device, issued on receipt of funds and accepted as a means of payment by persons other than the issuer. It is apparently used principally for Internet shopping, such as on eBay, Internet gambling, money transfer and as a substitute for travellers' cheques. It is not legal tender. It has to be backed up by a float of cash. E-money accounts are excluded from the definition of deposit-taking, and e-money institutions are forbidden to grant credit.
	A substantial amount of e-money is being used. At the end of 2005, approximately £137 million of e-money was in circulation in the UK, issued by specialist e-money issuers. What is more, e-money in issue in the UK is likely to expand significantly as the prepaid debit card starts to take off.
	As it stands, Section 24A sets out the definition of "account" in terms of deposit-taking accounts, so e-money accounts would not be caught by the offence. The majority of cases of the fraudulent misuse of another's e-money account would be covered by the Bill's new offences, but as the focus of the Bill is on the dishonest behaviour of the defendant, or indeed the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, it would be wise, given that the e-money industry is relatively new but growing rapidly, to ensure that it too is covered by Section 24A. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendments Nos. 29B to 29D:
	Page 8, line 23, at end insert "or
	(c) an issuer of electronic money (as defined for the purposes of Part 2 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000)."
	Page 9, line 24, leave out "or"
	Page 9, line 26, at end insert "or
	(c) an issuer of electronic money (as defined for the purposes of Part 2 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendment No. 32A:
	Page 11, line 18, at end insert—
	"24A (1) Amend section 2 (jurisdiction in respect of Group A offences) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after "means" insert "(subject to subsection (1A))".
	(3) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) In relation to an offence under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 (fraud), "relevant event" includes—
	(a) if the fraud involved an intention to make a gain and the gain occurred, that occurrence;
	(b) if the fraud involved an intention to cause a loss or to expose another to a risk of loss and the loss occurred, that occurrence.""

Lord Goldsmith: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35A. The amendments look complex but they have a simple aim; that is, to ensure that our courts continue to have jurisdiction over frauds where the only element of the crime that takes place here is the actual gain or loss of property.
	Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 currently gives our courts jurisdiction over fraud offences,
	"if any of the events which are relevant events in relation to the offence occurred in England and Wales".
	A "relevant event" is defined as,
	"any act or omission or other event (including any result of one or more acts or omissions), proof of which is required for conviction of the offence."
	The existing offence of obtaining property by deception requires both the deception of a victim and the obtaining of property. The offences of obtaining a money transfer by deception and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception also contain these two distinct elements: the deception and the obtaining. In our global economy, it is frequently the case that the deception can take place in a different country from that in which the transfer takes place. False representation may be made abroad which convinces people in England or Wales to transfer funds to a bank account in London and then on to the fraudster's account in some other country. At the moment, our courts have jurisdiction over these cases, because, although the deception takes place abroad, the transfer, which is another element of the offence, takes place in the UK. Similarly, if the transfer takes place abroad but the deception takes place in the UK, our courts have jurisdiction.
	Schedule 1 already makes consequential amendments to the 1993 Act to provide that it applies to the new offences in the Bill. However, at the moment, the effect of the 1993 Act on the new general fraud offences would be limited due to one crucial difference between the existing deception offences and the new general offence which this Bill will create. Noble Lords will know that under the new fraud offences the emphasis is on the dishonest intention of the defendant to commit the fraud. There is no need to prove that property has actually been obtained. While that is a step forward in prosecuting fraud—we have been over that ground—it means that the jurisdictional provisions in the 1993 Act will not bite on the new offence if the only act within our jurisdiction is the obtaining of property because that would cease to be a "relevant event".
	Our concern grows from the fact that people are ever more mobile and more global in outlook, and that outsourced banking and international transactions of all sorts are increasingly taking place. I consider that it is highly desirable to ensure that our courts will continue to have jurisdiction over frauds when the gain or loss that the fraudster makes takes place here. These amendments will ensure that any gain or loss that the fraudster intends to make that actually occurs here will constitute a "relevant event" for the purposes of the jurisdictional provisions. That should ensure that our courts continue to have jurisdiction when property is fraudulently gained in England or Wales, even though the deception has taken place in another country. Amendment No. 35A makes similar changes for Northern Ireland. I hope that noble Lords will think that the amendment is beneficial. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: This appears an obviously sensible amendment to block what would otherwise have been a serious lacuna in the Bill, and I am entirely happy to give it our full support.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 not moved.]

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendment No. 35A:
	Page 11, line 38, at end insert—
	"26A (1) Amend Article 39 (jurisdiction in respect of Group A offences) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1), after "means" insert "(subject to paragraph (1A))".
	(3) After paragraph (1) insert—
	"(1A) In relation to an offence under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 (fraud), "relevant event" includes—
	(a) if the fraud involved an intention to make a gain and the gain occurred, that occurrence;
	(b) if the fraud involved an intention to cause a loss or to expose another to a risk of loss and the loss occurred, that occurrence.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
	[Amendments Nos. 37 to 40 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Repeals and revocations]:
	[Amendments Nos. 41 to 46 not moved.]
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at seventeen minutes before seven o'clock.
	Tuesday, 31 January 2006.